Could you write a Letter
                   to support our campaign?

If you can, please write and tell your democratic representatives and their officers, the Department for Transport and Highways England, and the Media:

• why the routes through Binsted and Tortington are totally unacceptable, click here to read some reasons
• what you think about the traffic and countryside issues, and
• what you think about the process and the consultation.

(Note:  If you send a standard copied letter it may sometimes be treated as no more than a single submission, however many people send them in.  Well argued letters from individuals or organisations have to be taken into account so in this way you really can influence what happens.)

What shall I write? 

The main points which we believe need to be made to the authorities who will take the decisions are on our Home Page.

A dozen reasons to object to the Arundel bypass routes through Binsted and Tortington:

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.
.
For more info see:
www.arundelbypass.co.uk 
www.binsted.org
www.maves.org.uk

This website will be continually updated with the latest information available; so please keep coming back. 

For those with Twitter and Facebook accounts: please help to promote public awareness and feedback by tweeting and posting about www.arundelbypass.co.uk and the issues and info reported here.

Some of our supporters still prefer the idea of a fully offline bypass, and choose to support Option 3.  

Most of our supporters have concluded that a completely offline new bypass road would cost more, including in environmental damage, than it is worth, and that a Short Bypass cutting out most of the pinch points would suffice to stop the tailbacks and keep the traffic moving, whilst protecting the countryside.  They just want a short bypass, and to keep most of the existing road.  

ABNC campaigns to save Binsted's countryside from the longest and most damaging route Option 5A. We hope that when you write you will support us, and that you will find the information we have provided useful in forming your own views as you decide which option you want to support.