• {{title:A dozen reasons to object to Option 5A for the Arundel bypass}}

    A dozen reasons to object to Arundel Bypass Option 5A

  • 1. It would ruin a beautiful area of the South Downs National Park where Binsted Woods (250 acres, ancient, broadleaved, huge, wonderful and mysterious) meet many good footpaths leading from coastal villages and towns.

    .
    2. It would severely impact the very rich wildlife of Binsted Woods by destroying woodland and cutting off the Woods from their connecting mosaic of habitats.
    .
    3. It would destroy the peace, tranquillity and beauty of this area and the unity of its historic cultural heritage. 
    .
    4. It would be mostly on a 7 to 9 metre embankment through a much-loved wooded and farming landscape where the village of Binsted, with 10 listed buildings and a 12th century church, lies partly within Binsted Woods and partly in lovely rolling countryside.
    .
    5. It would destroy the village of Binsted as a special place by cutting off 4 of its 38 houses from the rest and blighting others. Three houses within the woods would be 75m from the new road, which would tower over them on a high embankment.
    .
    6. It would cause the present good recreation and learning activities in the area to cease, such as the Binsted Arts Festival, the Binsted Strawberry Fair (an event that has raised £100,000 over 30 years for charities and the fabric of the church), Ratpack Archers crossbow club courses within the woods, and the Forest Knights countryside experience business within the woods.
    .
    7. It would put an end to the present wildlife surveys and education/volunteering activities provided by the Mid Arun Valley Environmental Survey group.
    .
    8. It would destroy a much-needed ‘green lung’ near the crowded Sussex Coastal Plain which is rapidly changing with more and more housing development so will need it more than ever.
    .
    9. It is the wrong solution to Arundel’s traffic problems which need a holistic approach with improved public transport and better facilities for non-motorised users.
    .
    10. It is money thrown away at great environmental cost, as reports have shown that new roads soon become congested.
    .
    11. It would attract more traffic to this section of the A27 which would cause even greater traffic jams at Chichester to the west and Worthing to the east. Chichester recently lost its bypass improvement scheme due to lack of agreement and Worthing has a scheme simply to improve junctions and add traffic lights.
    .
    12. It is being promoted by Highways England with a biased consultation full of errors, which nowhere makes clear the damage to Binsted Village or Binsted Woods.
    .
    For more info see:
    www.arundelbypass.co.uk 
    www.binsted.org
    www.maves.org.uk
    .
    Make your views known to Highways England on www.highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a27-arundel-bypass or email them on a27arundelbypass@highwaysengland.co.uk

  • Support us

  • If you would like support us, then send us an email with your contact details.

    We will keep you in touch with Arundel A27 affairs by e-newsletter.