The full consultation report

Below you will find the executive summary, to access the full report please click the link to open the PDF.


Should you require a more accessible version or a paper copy please contact us at fasproject.lowermole@environment-agency.gov.uk. We want to be as accessible as possible but also mindful of the environment, so please consider whether a paper copy is best option before you make your request.


Executive summary


The Lower Mole Flood Alleviation Scheme protects around 1,300 homes and businesses in the area from flooding. The Scheme is now reaching the end of its design life and needs to be refurbished to maintain its standard of flood protection into the future and to ensure it is the best scheme for the environment, people and wildlife.

There are six main sluice structures along the length of the Scheme and we need to make decisions on their future.

In 2024, we consulted and engaged the community on a revised shortlist to hear their views on the options named as Red, Blue, Pink and Orange (the national economically preferred option) to help us make the final decision on the preferred option for the Scheme. This built on previous engagement and consultation with the community on options for how the Scheme could look in the future.

The revised shortlisted Options

The 4 Options presented in the consultation were

  • Option Red: Maintain the current water levels and habitat throughout the Lower Mole Scheme
  • Option Blue: Reduce changes in the water level and improve habitat by using fixed weirs and building a rock ramp
  • Option Pink: Reduce changes in the water level and improve habitat by building two rock ramps
  • Option Orange: Reduce the water levels with the potential for habitat improvements beyond what is currently along the Scheme. The Flood and Coastal Risk appraisal process highlights this option as the national economically preferred option.

How we ran the consultation

The consultation was open for 12 weeks from 15 August to midnight 6 November 2024. We consulted stakeholders using our online consultation tool, Citizen Space. Before the consultation we also updated our project website on Engagement HQ with information on each of the options to share these details with the community and stakeholders as soon as they were available.

We promoted the consultation using both social and traditional media, as well as placing posters in community spaces through the Scheme and direct mail drops to the community. We informed the MP, Local Councillors and members of the User Advisory Group about the consultation and held three public drop-in sessions throughout the time the consultation was open to allow the community to view the information in person and ask the project team any questions.

As the Scheme covers a large area, we structured the questions to allow respondents to answer only specific questions most related to their area of interest though it was possible to make a response to every question if respondents chose to do so.

What we discovered

We received 203 responses in total, of which 197 were individual responses, 4 responded on behalf of an organisation or group, 2 responded as other.

We asked consultees to rank the options Red, Blue, Pink and Orange (the national economically preferred option) in order of the one they most preferred to the one they least preferred.

  • Option Red received 128 votes, which equates to 63% of votes
  • Option Orange received 56 votes, which equates to 28% of votes
  • Option Blue received 14 votes, which equates to 7% of votes
  • Option Pink received 5 votes, which equates to 2% of votes


These figures are based on consultees first choice option only. The percentage of votes has been calculated using these figures as a proportion of the total number of responses.

An open text box was included alongside this question and from analysis of this feedback, it was possible to see some common themes on how and why consultees had chosen to rank the options.


  • 106 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to water levels, 91 of the 106 voted for option Red
  • 53 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to biodiversity impacts, 449 of the 53 voted for option Red
  • 45 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to amenity impacts, 43 of the 45 voted for option Red
  • 43 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to athletics, 40 of the 43 voted for option Red
  • 39 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to flood risk, 31 of the 39 voted for option Red

We asked if consultees would be interested in attending one of our guided tours around the Lower Mole to find out more about the work. 100 consultees said yes and we are currently arranging the tours for Spring 2025. We have been in touch with those who expressed interest to confirm the number of attendees.


We also included open-ended questions in the consultation which aimed to find out more about improvements to the river corridor for amenity, leisure and recreation purposes. These questions were used to identify key themes, to highlight what the community most valued about the river and its surroundings and proposals for improvements. Aspects such as improving access along the river, seeking ways to increase biodiversity, keeping access for amenity purposes and reducing invasive species were some of the suggested improvements.


We know water levels are really important to the community. We asked two questions about water levels at Molember Sluice and Viaduct Sluice. Of the 153 who responded for Molember Sluice, 104 (51%) consultees indicated they were strongly in favour retaining existing water levels at Molember Sluice, compared to 23 (11%) who favoured lower water levels. Of the 135 who responded for Viaduct Sluice, 80 (39%) consultees indicated they were strongly in favour retaining existing water levels, compared to 26 (12%) in favour of lower water levels. We also asked what measures could be taken upstream of Viaduct Sluice to mitigate lower water levels, with the use of steps/ramps and the provision of screening/planting being the mitigations most favoured.

We will explore the possibilities of providing permissive access along the west bank of the river around Island Barn Sluice. We asked if permissive paths along the west bank of the river around Island Barn Sluice would be useful to the community. 74 (36%) consultees said yes, 31 (15%) consultees said no, this question was not answered by 69 (34%) consultees. Further questions asked about the possibility of permissive access will enable us to understand what benefits a permissive access could bring and what features, such as seating, would be useful.


Option decision


Following the consultation, we are presented with two key options:

  • Option Red is highlighted as the highest ranked option from the consultation feedback and has emerged as the Local Choice.
  • Option Orange which represents the most cost-effective alternative option which delivers the highest benefits and the lowest cost. This is also known as the National Preferred Economic Option.

The project team will prioritise the progression of Option Red, the Local Choice option, acknowledging the findings of the consultation.

However, this option requires significantly more additional funding than Option Orange to proceed.


In the event funding for the Local Choice is not able to be secured, the project team will then determine if suitable funding is available to allow for the progression of the National Economically Preferred Option.


All Options require additional funding as they are not fully funded by GIA, below is a summary of the additional funding required to progress options Red and Orange.


Option Name

Grant in Aid (GiA) Funding Available (£M)

Costs (£M)

Partnership Funding Score (%)

Additional Funding Required (£M)

Red - The Local Choice option

40.1

45.4

88

5.3

Orange - The National Economically Preferred Option

40.1

40.9

98

0.8


Given the financial requirements of the Local Choice, the important next step for us is to seek additional funding from external sources which would allow us to take Option Red forward. The actions we need to undertake to seek additional funding include collating all the relevant information on the Local Choice and presenting this in conversation with stakeholders or potential funding partners. We will then wait for their feedback on the availability of additional funding. This process aligns with the latest FCRM guidance from the Environment Agency, ensuring that we are following best practices for securing the necessary resources.


Next steps

Following the confirmation of the option to be taken forward, the project team will proceed with the detailed design phase for this option. Due to the complex and technical nature of this project, the design period is currently estimated to span approximately three years.

We are committed to engaging with all relevant stakeholders during this time to ensure that their concerns and expectations are heard. The planned indicative steps are shown below:


  • The Outline Business Case submitted to our Project Review Group which will present the option to be taken forward
  • Getting into contract with our design team and relevant specialists
  • Detailed design phase
  • Full Business Case submitted to our Project Review Group which sets out the case for construction
  • Construction phase commences
  • Project completion

Below you will find the executive summary, to access the full report please click the link to open the PDF.


Should you require a more accessible version or a paper copy please contact us at fasproject.lowermole@environment-agency.gov.uk. We want to be as accessible as possible but also mindful of the environment, so please consider whether a paper copy is best option before you make your request.


Executive summary


The Lower Mole Flood Alleviation Scheme protects around 1,300 homes and businesses in the area from flooding. The Scheme is now reaching the end of its design life and needs to be refurbished to maintain its standard of flood protection into the future and to ensure it is the best scheme for the environment, people and wildlife.

There are six main sluice structures along the length of the Scheme and we need to make decisions on their future.

In 2024, we consulted and engaged the community on a revised shortlist to hear their views on the options named as Red, Blue, Pink and Orange (the national economically preferred option) to help us make the final decision on the preferred option for the Scheme. This built on previous engagement and consultation with the community on options for how the Scheme could look in the future.

The revised shortlisted Options

The 4 Options presented in the consultation were

  • Option Red: Maintain the current water levels and habitat throughout the Lower Mole Scheme
  • Option Blue: Reduce changes in the water level and improve habitat by using fixed weirs and building a rock ramp
  • Option Pink: Reduce changes in the water level and improve habitat by building two rock ramps
  • Option Orange: Reduce the water levels with the potential for habitat improvements beyond what is currently along the Scheme. The Flood and Coastal Risk appraisal process highlights this option as the national economically preferred option.

How we ran the consultation

The consultation was open for 12 weeks from 15 August to midnight 6 November 2024. We consulted stakeholders using our online consultation tool, Citizen Space. Before the consultation we also updated our project website on Engagement HQ with information on each of the options to share these details with the community and stakeholders as soon as they were available.

We promoted the consultation using both social and traditional media, as well as placing posters in community spaces through the Scheme and direct mail drops to the community. We informed the MP, Local Councillors and members of the User Advisory Group about the consultation and held three public drop-in sessions throughout the time the consultation was open to allow the community to view the information in person and ask the project team any questions.

As the Scheme covers a large area, we structured the questions to allow respondents to answer only specific questions most related to their area of interest though it was possible to make a response to every question if respondents chose to do so.

What we discovered

We received 203 responses in total, of which 197 were individual responses, 4 responded on behalf of an organisation or group, 2 responded as other.

We asked consultees to rank the options Red, Blue, Pink and Orange (the national economically preferred option) in order of the one they most preferred to the one they least preferred.

  • Option Red received 128 votes, which equates to 63% of votes
  • Option Orange received 56 votes, which equates to 28% of votes
  • Option Blue received 14 votes, which equates to 7% of votes
  • Option Pink received 5 votes, which equates to 2% of votes


These figures are based on consultees first choice option only. The percentage of votes has been calculated using these figures as a proportion of the total number of responses.

An open text box was included alongside this question and from analysis of this feedback, it was possible to see some common themes on how and why consultees had chosen to rank the options.


  • 106 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to water levels, 91 of the 106 voted for option Red
  • 53 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to biodiversity impacts, 449 of the 53 voted for option Red
  • 45 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to amenity impacts, 43 of the 45 voted for option Red
  • 43 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to athletics, 40 of the 43 voted for option Red
  • 39 consultees ranked the options because of reasons related to flood risk, 31 of the 39 voted for option Red

We asked if consultees would be interested in attending one of our guided tours around the Lower Mole to find out more about the work. 100 consultees said yes and we are currently arranging the tours for Spring 2025. We have been in touch with those who expressed interest to confirm the number of attendees.


We also included open-ended questions in the consultation which aimed to find out more about improvements to the river corridor for amenity, leisure and recreation purposes. These questions were used to identify key themes, to highlight what the community most valued about the river and its surroundings and proposals for improvements. Aspects such as improving access along the river, seeking ways to increase biodiversity, keeping access for amenity purposes and reducing invasive species were some of the suggested improvements.


We know water levels are really important to the community. We asked two questions about water levels at Molember Sluice and Viaduct Sluice. Of the 153 who responded for Molember Sluice, 104 (51%) consultees indicated they were strongly in favour retaining existing water levels at Molember Sluice, compared to 23 (11%) who favoured lower water levels. Of the 135 who responded for Viaduct Sluice, 80 (39%) consultees indicated they were strongly in favour retaining existing water levels, compared to 26 (12%) in favour of lower water levels. We also asked what measures could be taken upstream of Viaduct Sluice to mitigate lower water levels, with the use of steps/ramps and the provision of screening/planting being the mitigations most favoured.

We will explore the possibilities of providing permissive access along the west bank of the river around Island Barn Sluice. We asked if permissive paths along the west bank of the river around Island Barn Sluice would be useful to the community. 74 (36%) consultees said yes, 31 (15%) consultees said no, this question was not answered by 69 (34%) consultees. Further questions asked about the possibility of permissive access will enable us to understand what benefits a permissive access could bring and what features, such as seating, would be useful.


Option decision


Following the consultation, we are presented with two key options:

  • Option Red is highlighted as the highest ranked option from the consultation feedback and has emerged as the Local Choice.
  • Option Orange which represents the most cost-effective alternative option which delivers the highest benefits and the lowest cost. This is also known as the National Preferred Economic Option.

The project team will prioritise the progression of Option Red, the Local Choice option, acknowledging the findings of the consultation.

However, this option requires significantly more additional funding than Option Orange to proceed.


In the event funding for the Local Choice is not able to be secured, the project team will then determine if suitable funding is available to allow for the progression of the National Economically Preferred Option.


All Options require additional funding as they are not fully funded by GIA, below is a summary of the additional funding required to progress options Red and Orange.


Option Name

Grant in Aid (GiA) Funding Available (£M)

Costs (£M)

Partnership Funding Score (%)

Additional Funding Required (£M)

Red - The Local Choice option

40.1

45.4

88

5.3

Orange - The National Economically Preferred Option

40.1

40.9

98

0.8


Given the financial requirements of the Local Choice, the important next step for us is to seek additional funding from external sources which would allow us to take Option Red forward. The actions we need to undertake to seek additional funding include collating all the relevant information on the Local Choice and presenting this in conversation with stakeholders or potential funding partners. We will then wait for their feedback on the availability of additional funding. This process aligns with the latest FCRM guidance from the Environment Agency, ensuring that we are following best practices for securing the necessary resources.


Next steps

Following the confirmation of the option to be taken forward, the project team will proceed with the detailed design phase for this option. Due to the complex and technical nature of this project, the design period is currently estimated to span approximately three years.

We are committed to engaging with all relevant stakeholders during this time to ensure that their concerns and expectations are heard. The planned indicative steps are shown below:


  • The Outline Business Case submitted to our Project Review Group which will present the option to be taken forward
  • Getting into contract with our design team and relevant specialists
  • Detailed design phase
  • Full Business Case submitted to our Project Review Group which sets out the case for construction
  • Construction phase commences
  • Project completion
Page last updated: 06 May 2025, 11:48 AM