This really is important to do - it is not a done deal - it is low value for money, and is against planning policies. The government is increasingly sensitive to voter concerns - so all voices need to be heard.

First up, it may sound obvious, but don't forget to make it perfectly clear in your response that you oppose or strongly oppose National Highways' proposed Arundel Bypass, and explain your reasons.

Some of the main key points you might want to mention are listed here - more detail on them can be found later on this page.  In a nutshell, the Arundel A27 Grey Route is unacceptable, based on outdated thinking and would result in:

• Increased traffic and carbon emissions when we desperately need to reduce car miles because of the Climate Emergency (what’s happened to taking action after COP26?)
• Loss and blight of people's homes and livelihoods
• Loss of protected wildlife, rare habitats and ancient landscapes
• Destruction of villages and communities
• Negative impacts on health of children, the elderly and vulnerable
• Damage to the environment, countryside, heritage and listed buildings, and the setting of the South Downs National Park
• Not meeting future transport requirements or needs of people without cars
• High costs and poor value for money

In the 2019 consultation, only 7% of people wanted Highways to pick the Grey Route, and, two thirds wanted a shorter route on or close to the existing road, if anything at all.  National Highways' failure to listen to that is undemocratic. 

The planned A27 Arundel Bypass is a hugely destructive, costly, eight-kilometre, dual carriageway which would wreck three villages and harm rare and protected wildlife.  Most of the traffic is only travelling a short distance, much of which could be transferred to walking, cycling and public transport with proper investment - at a fraction of the cost of this route.

It's a good idea also to make clear at the start if you have any better idea, to sufficiently ease the flow of traffic at Arundel at a much lower cost and with much less impact on communities and the environment. You can read more about the Arundel Alternative here.

• What concerns do you have about the 3 or more years of construction?
   
• Have you got concerns about the huge amount of carbon emissions in construction?
   
• Do you have concerns about air, noise, light, dust, vibration, water pollution during construction?
   
• Are you concerned about road closures and delays during construction? And impacts to public transport?
   
• What do you think about the proposal to build a 15m high viaduct across the Arun valley watermeadows and in the view near Arundel?   The 7m high viaduct over the Binsted Rife?  And the arrangements proposed for Yapton Lane, where works would start?
   
• With the estimated cost in 2019 up to a maximum £1.2bn of taxpayers money, and a likely cost at least in the region of half a billion pounds:  do you think your tax money would be well and wisely spent on constructing this scheme, or not? 

• What are your concerns about air, noise, light, vibration pollution from the road when it is operational?
   
• Do you think Electric Vehicles are the panacea that National Highways suggest? They still give off tyre particles and tyre noise, and cause congestion.
   
• Carbon emissions will be made worse not only by construction, but also by vehicles travelling faster, and by drivers deciding to make longer journeys to work or shop.
   
• Noise barriers are not adequate in the design, nor present in many places where you may think they would be needed.  Tell National Highways about your general, and your specific concerns about noise.
   
• Do you have concerns about safety?  Is that to do with the speed and design on the Grey Route, or all the extra traffic that will be rat-running through Walberton village with its primary school and older population, or both?
   
• You may have concerns over the complexity of the junctions -  local area connectivity has been reduced, so as to favour through traffic.
   
• National Highways are, at present, showing a 50mph speed limit at the western end.  You may be concerned about whether this goes far enough west (it stops at Binsted church leaving the church exposed to acceleration and braking noise, and most of the village exposed to 70mph noise).  You may also not believe that enough drivers would keep to it.
   
• There is a built in bottleneck at the western end where the scheme hits the Fontwell roundabouts, on which National Highways plans to add traffic lights.  You may feel that operationally this makes the whole scheme a waste of money, £500million just to move congestion 5 miles from Crossbush to Fontwell.

• National Highways are not proposing adequate mitigation for the impacts on community, heritage, wildlife, landscape.  The Grey Route will be hugely damaging in all those respects. 
   
• The mitigation proposed for wildlife is wholly inadequate to offset the damage.  Two widened 'green' overbridges, to take Binsted Lane and Tortington Lane over the Grey Route, are supposed to provide a safe crossing to replace 8km of countryside where there are currently many, many diffuse and variable crossing points for wildlife.  There is no way that such token measures can mitigate landscape scale slaughter of bats, badgers, dormice, frogs and toads, birds and more.
   
• How much do you think the 50mph speed limit at the western end will help?  National Highways had to put it in because of the curve in the road but they are dressing it up as mitigation for intrusion on the Grade II* Binsted church - a nonsense when it stops just there, so the church will suffer extra braking and acceleration noise and pollution.
   
• The 50mph speed limit does not make the noise, visual, pollution and severance impact on Walberton Binsted and Fontwell acceptable.
   
• The plans are unambitious in terms of inadequate screening, noise buffering and planting. 
   
• They would try to translocate wildlife such as frogs and toads, of which there are important populations in the Grey Route area.  But moving wildlife to new locations is problematic:  eg frogs and toads try to return to their birth pond; diseases are spread in translocation.  
   
• Making a new golf course on land east of the Black Horse Binsted is not a sensible priority for mitigation.  That land could much be better used in another way, whether traditional food growing, rewilding, or planting woodland to reduce the road's impacts on the National Park (and absorb at least a little of the carbon which construction would release). This idea should be dropped.
   
• There will be no effective mitigation for ecological severance. 
  • Fourteen species of bats make this area of national or international importance (according to Natural England), and they cross the route to forage. This loss of connected habitat cannot be mitigated.
  • Nor will the dormice, water voles, badgers and other wildlife all divert to the two road bridges. This ecological habitat severance and loss, together with direct vehicle impacts, spells disaster for an area exceptionally rich in biodiversity.
     
• Is there anything else you would like to see included as mitigation if the route were to go ahead, which National Highways have not thought of?

The Grey route is based on 'silo' thinking and outdated, unsustainable transport planning

National Highways are set up as a trunk road building and maintenance company, nothing else: this results in 'silo' thinking.  They have no interest in other sustainable transport modes.  They have no interest in traffic on local roads, unless they can make it bad enough to justify building a trunk road: local road impacts are County Highways responsibility, not National Highways' problem. 

So National Highways' objective is a simple and narrow one:  to build, and go on building, more and bigger roads.  Building roads such as this 8km Arundel bypass Grey Route will increase overall vehicle use, adding to congestion and pollution.  This is a disastrous approach both globally for climate change, and locally for the traffic impacts as well as the community and environmental impacts.  But from National Highways' point of view, increasing vehicle use demonstrates the value which justifies their work.  

As such, NH is unmotivated to identify the appropriate best value solution: as Peter Phillips of NH has said, rather than seeking the most economical and effective use of taxpayers' money, they will always aim to design and choose the most expensive road-building solution for which they can obtain budget approval.

National Highways' traffic-based justification for the scheme is based on "predict and provide" thinking, under which they design for inflated capacity on the reckless, outdated assumption that perpetual traffic growth should be modelled and provided for in disregard of the traffic-inflationary (and community and environmental) consequences.  Their over-specced roads then do attract more extra traffic than they would otherwise have done, and of course, they just fill up again.  

As the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT)' August 2019 report noted, "We must fully abandon predict and provide models of transport planning".  The New Deal for Transport White Paper (1998) abandoned ‘predict and provide’ as unsustainable: but National Highways are still doing it. This consultation is your opportunity to tell National Highways they should abandon that old model. 

Based on any joined-up decision-making process which takes into account climate change, the environment, communities and sustainable transport modes, the A27 Arundel bypass Grey Route must be rejected outright. 

For more information on what traffic experts have to say, read The Transport Science Case on this link. 

The Grey route has no basis in joined-up planning for traffic management. 

From the notes below, please mention those points which seem most important to you.

• The Grey Route has no solid justification in traffic terms.  Transport studies note major uncertainty in traffic and travel forecasting, and NH's record on forecasting is not good. Far from increasing as had been predicted: traffic at Arundel/Crossbush is, on the latest figures, at its lowest level since 2000.
   
• National Highways (NH) has claimed that the bypass will shorten journey times in the wider Portsmouth-Brighton context but produces no data for this. The ‘benefits’ (journey time savings) for the Arundel section are negated by increased delays at Fontwell, Chichester and Worthing-Lancing. To make their scheme look less bad value, the wider adverse traffic impacts, even as near as Fontwell, where National Highways plan to add traffic lights to the roundabouts, have been deemed ‘out of scope’ of the Arundel scheme study.  Fontwell roundabouts are already over capacity. 
   
• The increased delays in the wider A27 context will not be resolved by more NH investment in the foreseeable future, if ever.  They could not come to statutory consultation for at least a decade, if at all.  
   
• The Arundel Bypass wouldn’t solve the traffic problems in the wider local traffic network area either.  Instead, it would make them worse:
  • The scheme will lead to a significant (42%, 1,300 vehicles per day) increase in traffic through Walberton - a rural village and a conservation area.  A proportion of this is due to rat-running to avoid congestion at Fontwell.  National Highways' own description of the rat run can be seen on a map here.
  • Closure of the westbound access to Arundel Road from the A27 will force HGVs to travel through Fontwell Village to reach the industrial areas.
  • Failure to provide a junction at Ford Road will lead to traffic having to travel via other congested routes, including the A259, Ford Road itself, and through the villages to reach the A27 at Fontwell.
  • Severing Tye Lane in Walberton will increase traffic through Walberton conservation area.  Closure of left turn access to the Fordingbridge site from the A27 also leads to HGV traffic having to negotiate Fontwell roundabouts and return through the residential centre of the village to access the businesses.
  • Reducing the number of accesses on and off the A27, would cause eastbound HGV and other traffic from the south to still go through Arundel. It would create extra chaos, congestion and pollution as vehicles travel further locally to get to and from the A27.
  • The scheme would create new off-A27 rat-run demand eg increasing traffic on Yapton Lane and through Walberton and Fontwell villages
  • The scheme would increase car dependency, encouraging more distant commuting and shopping habits, thereby increasing local as well as distance traffic ('induced traffic')
  • The scheme proposes to use up taxpayers' money on an acknowledged low value for money scheme.  Better value for the local traffic network would come from car use reduction investments such as school buses, public transport, cycling. 
     
• Changes in commuting and shopping and school travel patterns are expected over the coming decade due to increased home working, increased flexible hours working together with wider demographic changes.  These are particularly relevant to Arundel due to the predominantly short-journey traffic using this section. 
   
• National Highways have suggested that this Arundel Bypass could be justified as a first step towards a major south coast through route parallel to the M25.  But this can never happen.  The climate emergency will change both behaviours and policies: which will militate against this grandiose project ever being completed, highly damaging as it is to so many Sussex and environmental assets.  
   
  • National Highways already know that the congestion at Worthing-Lancing, which will be worsened by the Arundel Bypass, cannot be resolved by building a new road through the National Park downland.  ​Worthing is already much more congested than Arundel so 31% (11,700 vehicles per day) more traffic east of Crossbush towards Worthing will not help.  
     
  • The demand for a south coast major route is not evidence-based, but is only in NH interests as a road-building company. Average trips on the A27 are well below typical trunk road (a third of traffic at Arundel is local, less than 10km), with half average HGV traffic.
     
• Millions of tonnes more carbon emissions would be emitted if the Grey Route goes ahead.
   
• National Highways business case, such as it is, rests to a large extent  on shifting traffic from the A259 to the A27 immediately following scheme completion.  This is highly unlikely to occur: most traffic using the A259 along this section is doing so to access homes or businesses near the A259, consequently unlikely to re-route.  NH says there is benefit in additional traffic on Grey as it is displaced from A259. This is not credible since much A259 traffic is to access commercial and residential areas alongside the A259.  WSCC disagrees with NH as its own analysis forecasts growth of traffic on the A259.
   
  • If NH were correct about the ‘benefits’ shifting traffic off the A259 et al on to the A27, this would mean:
    • Increased congestion at Fontwell generating major delays at planned new traffic lights.
       
    • Much increased congestion at Lyminster, where the new road is congested above 23,000, so the new WSCC bypass will be made useless by Grey route’s 31,500 addition.
       
    • Increased congestion at Worthing, where NH is working on piecemeal plans and retaining single carriageway. The 14,600 extra traffic east of Crossbush will add to unresolvable Worthing-Lancing congestion.
       
    • The 57% increase in traffic at Fontwell will largely go on to increase Chichester congestion.
       
    • A junction at Ford Road, a WSCC priority, will not be built by National Highways because it cannot be shown to provide Value for Money (VfM).  Therefore Ford area HGVs will go through Arundel as before, either via Ford Rd or via Yapton Lane and the old A27. With or without a junction, traffic will increase on Ford Road.
       
    • Traffic forecasts by NH for the A27 are highly contentious as are scheme ‘benefits’ to South Downs villages. Arundel plays only a very small part in impacts on Storrington.

National Highways' traffic case for this costly project, simply does not add up.

 General rural community and economic impacts

• The process is undemocratic, leading to community alienation.  At 2019 NH consultation, public support for the Grey route was 7%, 64% (mostly local) opposed all offline road options.  
   
• Loss of homes and blight on voters’ homes and livelihoods
   
• Degradation of villages and communities
   
• Increase in local roads rat-running to access fewer access points on A27
   
• impacts on health of children, the elderly and vulnerable
   
• While moving the traffic a little away from Arundel, it is much closer to other communities.  It will be faster, louder and more polluting, and the route has severe impacts on Binsted, Walberton and Fontwell, and Tortington villages, and on Arundel town.
   
• Arundel:

  • Water meadows and River Arun devastated.  Noted historic landscape and views south of Arundel Castle lost to a massive road.

  • Substantial increase in noise, air pollution and traffic from the dual carriageway above the flood plain and Ford Road

  • Destruction of an area very popular for riverside walks, peaceful river activities and bird watching, with amenities attracting visitors and residents

• Walberton:
  • Grey is within 150m of the primary school, play centre and toddler groups, exposing young children to dangerous levels of noise and pollution.
  • Walberton Village Hall, Cricket Pavilion and playing fields badly impacted.
  • Huge land take for a massive split level junction and slip roads at Tye Lane and Mill Lane close to Slindon.
  • Proposed 47% increase in traffic through the village, loss of homes and business.
  • Route destroys the golf course and impacts heavily on Avisford Park Hotel, a local employer.
     
• Binsted: 

• the route cuts through the middle of the village.
  • loss of business, community life, popular Strawberry Fair, Arts Festival, walks and rides.
  • The road passes within a few metres of the 12th century Grade II* listed church which would be forced to close. 
  • The dual carriageway would cut across peaceful footpaths and lanes where people live and visitors come to walk, cycle, run and ride, with paths replaced by seven metre high bridges.

• Tortington: 

• Noisy, polluting dual carriageway cutting across the village; this beautiful, ancient landscape will lose peaceful walks and rides, and businesses
• The village would be cut off from woodland, fields, lanes and the National Park

• Fontwell:
   
  • Traffic at the A27 and A29 roundabouts will increase from 30,000 to 50,000 a day (NH figures)  - more rat-running along country lanes used by local residents. 
  • Heavy traffic, including lorries, from industrial estate by Copse Lane will go through Fontwell village due to slip road changes.               

Local businesses:
These are not keen.  National Highways recently called a business meeting. Only six attended, of these, three voiced concerns about the scheme, its low benefits and disruptive impacts. 
This scheme is not about bringing benefits to West Sussex, it is about National Highways’ long term aspiration to create a high speed south coast through route parallel to the M25. This will never be realized due to the physical and planning constraints of the area including the South Downs National Park, together with the inevitably increasing impact of climate change policy. 

• Loss of protected wildlife, fragmentation of recognised rare habitats.
   
• Irreversible damage to bird nesting and roosting habitat and essential migratory routes over the water meadows.
   
• Severs area of ‘extraordinary biodiversity’ and ‘national or international significance’ for bats (Natural England).
   
• Are you concerned about impacts to wildlife and habitats?  The route impacts a number of protected species, including migrating and wetland birds, dormice, water voles, frogs and toads, and 15 species of bat. 

• Some ancient and veteran trees will be lost due to construction of the scheme. The Government's National Policy Statement for National Networks 2014 in section 5.32 (page 53) states, "Aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland are also particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided."
   
• National Highways are not even reporting the damage they will do according to up to date standards.  Section 8.6.28 states that habitat compensation calculations are made using the obsolete Natural England Metric 2.0. This has been superceded in 2021 with version 3.0 and will generate different results.
   
• The impact on protected species and the general ecology can be dramatically reduced by selection of a different route, such as the Arundel Alternative.
   
• Do you consider it acceptable that ancient and newer hedgerows would be destroyed, including hedgerows that are important wildlife movement corridors and harbour rare insects, small mammals including dormice?

Walberton Parish Council makes these points also:

• The route impacts a number of protected species, including voles and several species of bat (PEIR Section 8.5.18, p8-16). National Highways acknowledge that construction and operation of the scheme will have a negative impact on these.
  • The road cuts across their commuting routes to foraging and roosting
  • The increase in noise level will interfere with their peaceful lives and drive them away
  • Proposed generalised methods to mitigate impacts may not be sufficient
  • Alcathoe bats forage along the Binsted Valley and Rife. They have been documented by National Highways in their Bat Radiotracking Baseline Survey, section 3.2.1.7 on page 3-35. This has been described as one of the rarest mammals in Britain by the University of Sussex. The PEIR document fails to mention them at all.
  • Mitigation measures to protect a rare species whose requirements are poorly understood are unlikely to be effective.
  • A recent paper shows that there has been very poor evaluation of the efficacy of oft-cited measures referred to in guidance documents (only 10%).
  • Increased air and water pollution will poison their homes
• A number of ancient and veteran trees will be lost due to construction of the scheme (8.5.32-41). The Government's National Policy Statement for National Networks 2014 in section 5.32 (page 53) states, "Aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland are also particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided."

• How do you feel about the loss of so much agricultural land and damage to wetland?
   
• What do you think about the impacts to the South Downs National Park - noise, light, air pollution, loss of tranquillity, quality of access on foot from the villages spoiled, historic landscapes and vistas ruined, the wildlife that live in the ancient woodlands being killed off as it attempts to continue to cross the route to forage?
   
• Are you concerned about water pollution from the run off from both construction and the road once opened?   Pollution run-off from more vehicles and road surfaces polluting local streams, ponds and waterways.  Increased air and water pollution will poison wildlife habitats.
   
• What are your concerns about the impact of carbon emissions on climate change? As well as the huge carbon footprint of construction, the road will encourage people to travel faster and further, indefinitely adding to carbon emissions in the future, even with electric vehicles.  Faster roads mean people choose to live and work, or live and shop, at greater distances, and choose not to use public transport options.

• The Grey route increases traffic and carbon emissions when we need to reduce car miles significantly, as advised by government advisory body Climate Change Committee and major transport research bodies.
   
• Emissions embodied in the construction of the 8km Grey Route will be substantially greater than for a shorter route and induced traffic will generate increasing carbon emissions, even with a shift to electric vehicles, along with increasing particulates.
   
• The scheme is opposed by Natural England, Historic England, Sussex Wildlife Trust, South Downs National Park Authority, all of whom would prefer a much shorter and lower-impact improvement such as the Arundel Alternative.
   
• For more in-depth information on these topics, read The Climate Emergency Case and The Environmental Case on this link. 

THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT - CULTURAL HERITAGE

• Impact on many Binsted listed buildings including Grade II* church
   
• Loss of quality of ancient landscapes, eg:
   
  • Arun Valley watermeadows, historic landscape and views south of Arundel Castle lost
    .
  • Bnisted Rife valley grazing marshes
     
  • Binsted agricultural village landscape with the houses arranged around central fields and water sources, dating back to before villages were gathered into a central cluster around their church in the middle ages
     
• Loss of tranquillity in the landscape including South Downs National Park

For more information on this topic, read The Heritage Case on this link.

• Do you think that the proposed Arundel Bypass route would be good or bad for people's health and well-being?  How would it affect the quality of your leisure and access in this countryside?
   
• Do you have concerns over the worsening of air pollution and the associated illnesses from tyre particulates, exhaust and noise?  Permanent reduction in the fresh/clean air levels of our villages.  Air quality reduced around Walberton school, Pre-School and Community Play Centre. Greater traffic volume on our quiet streets means more air pollution.
   
• Do you think they should be taking into account the fact that the Arundel Bypass fails on World Health Organisation standards for PM2.5 air pollution, for example in the vicinity of Walberton Primary School?
   
• Are you concerned over the impacts of construction (3 years) on your or others' health and well-being? The stress, noise, light, air pollution, disruption etc.  Dust, rubble, mud and disruption to the air and area you live in.
   
• Are you concerned about the stress it would cause to people living close to the route if it goes ahead? The extra traffic on the A27, the lack of adequate connections causing more chaos, congestion and pollution off the A27 on local roads.  Queuing car engines backed up at bottlenecks in villages as ‘rat runs’ are more frequently used.
   
• How big an issue do you think the noise will be?  We can expect:  increased heavy machinery movement and noise during construction; heavy lorries diverted across all roads in the area permanently; volume of traffic increased across the area permanently; impact to protected and fragile wildlife species; Incessant background noise disturbing quiet village life and schools; destructive to our quiet roads and footpaths.
   
• What are your concerns about the impact the Arundel Bypass would have on local schools, in particular at Walberton where it comes so close to the primary school, nursery school, and playcentre/toddler group?
   
• Are you, your family/friends already being impacted by the stress of dealing with Arundel Bypass issues? Explain how it's affecting you now.

The economic benefits said to be underpinning the whole scheme are being widely challenged by national studies and research. Using National Highways' (NH's) own evaluation data on 86 schemes, a CPRE-commissioned  study demonstrated in 2017 that very few of NH's schemes met promised economic benefits and most the reverse.

Time saving values form the basis of calculating benefit and this approach is now being heavily challenged by national research bodies. Future evaluation standards are likely to change, revealing poor economic benefit of this scheme.

In 2019, NH forecast likely cost of £455M+ and maximum of £1.2Bn. Costs have gone up substantially since then.  

The benefit to cost ratio (BCR) is currently identified as LOW.  At the 2019 re-consultation NH claimed BCR 1.95 and Medium VfM for Grey.  Without announcement, it changed this to BCR 1.46 in 2019, then BCR 1.37 and LOW VfM for the Preferred Route Announcement Oct 2020. At that level, it is among the least financially effective 5% of approved road schemes. Some analysts consider it may go as low as 0.87, ie negative benefit, as costs go up and traffic forecasts change. 

Cost does not account for full mitigations. Final figure will be worse. Mitigations may be scrapped due to cost - are National Highways' mitigation offers worth anything without assurance that the funding will be there?

Given the state of the economy, wasting funds here is a poor choice.  Issues at Arundel do not justify the spend. Far better VfM options for effective improvements exist (see www.arundelalternative.org )

For more information on this topic, read The Economic Case on this link.

• What did you think of National Highways' consultation?  Was it well promoted?  Did their documents give you good information clearly presented?  If you looked at their response form, did you feel that the questions being asked were the ones that you wanted to answer?
   
• National Highways were not consulting on
  • whether people want this bypass route to be built or not (they would like you to think it is a done deal)
  • whether you think a spend of potentially more than £500million is good value for your tax money (instead they are hiding current cost estimates)
  • whether you think the money would be better spent on sustainable transport options and on traffic management solutions - or on other measures to help with, rather than worsen, the climate and ecological emergency
  • whether you think the ecological, landscape, carbon, community and heritage costs should be taken into account when appraising value for money and assessing the cost-benefit ratio
     
• Do you think National Highways should have been providing this information and inviting people to comment on matters like these?
   
• Have you commented to them on these important matters in your consultation response anyway? (If you haven't, please do!)
   
• Were there enough staffed or unstaffed exhibition events in your area?  Did staff give meaningful and useful answers to your questions?
   
• What did you think of the consultation packs?  Were there enough?  Were the materials and displays clear and informative?  Did they fail to show things you think were important? Did you notice errors, misspelt names, poor labelling, inadequacies in the consultation materials?
   
• If you called or emailed National Highways for info during consultation was the experience satisfactory? 
   
• Do you think it was adequate to hold the consultation during the Omicron phase of the Covid-19 pandemic?
   
• What other comments do you have about the adequacy of the Consultation?
   
• Is it acceptable that this consultation did not reveal up to date cost and value for money / Benefit Cost Ratio figures?
   
• Is it acceptable that this consultation did not reveal up to date traffic records and predictions?
   
• The information supplied in the consultation is extremely limited and often out-of-date.
  • Many questions that have been asked of NH remain unanswered
  • We feel that this lack of data renders the consultation not fit for purpose
     
• Walberton Parish Council believe that the scheme does not adequately meet the objectives set out by National Highways. You can read their explanation here.
   
• Proposals which better fulfil these objectives at much reduced cost and environmental impact have not been considered. You can read more about the Arundel Alternative here.