Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside

Has anyone who is responsible for suggesting the Grey Route stood and watched vehicles being driven down Tye Lane, Yapton Lane or indeed The Street? I imagine they have not and therefore have total disregard for the safety of residents who use these roads currently and often have to manoeuvre while driving their cars to avoid the many very large vehicles on these roads already. Tye Lane currently is just about wide enough for one car to travel so it is absurd to consider the use of this road for the likely traffic proposed. The Street, which at present deals with the problems of cars and school pickups is already struggling with additional traffic through the village. WHY ON EARTH SHOULD THE GREY ROUTE BE CHOSEN CONSIDERING THESE POTENTIAL DANGEROUS DRIVING IMPLICATIONS? The comment made in The Bell recently from residents who were expressing their delight in Arundel itself being left unaffected should perhaps give some consideration to the ruin of beautiful countryside through which the Grey Route is planned and the devastating effect on the life of residents within the Grey Route area.

I completely reject the Grey route for the reasons and recommendations as stated.

I completely reject the Grey route for the reasons and recommendations as stated. I cannot believe any Government would sign off on a project that does so much environmental damage, creates so much public animosity and all at such a massive cost when there are cheaper and much more practicable alternatives available to them. It beggars belief that the Government may still go ahead with the Grey route spending hundreds of millions for on average a ten minute reduction in journey times. On top of that, their plans will only serve to move the bottle neck to a different point on the A27 (e.g. Fontwell, Chechester) and no doubt more money will need to be spent again to fix a new problem made at the hands of the Government with their Arundel decision.

I object to the grey route for many reasons, some of which are as follows: Large scale destruction of countryside. The government is now encouraging rejuvenation of grasslands to soak up carbon. Loss of wildlife which includes hedgehogs, badgers, water voles, owls, slow worms, toads and many more species. Rat-running through local villages, where lanes and streets are very narrow. Close to pre-school and school increasing pollution and ill health. Increased traffic noise in the villages. When they have traffic lights at Fontwell there will be very long queues of traffic at a standstill polluting the area.

This is madness, spending nearly half a billon when there is a totally feasible alternative, for a fraction of the cost, also destroying the structure of villages, demolishing homes, wrecking peoples lives and destroying the countryside, for a few minutes of travel time, shame on you Highways England

Walking past Binsted across to Walberton yesterday and thinking about the destruction about to be wrought was totally depressing. Binsted is probably the most peaceful spot left south of the A27, so lets destroy it. It should be compulsory for every decision maker on this project to do the same walk with a member of the community and explain why another road is such a good idea.

Say No to GREY and take the Arundel Alternative

What's the point? The traffic congestion will merely shift from Crossbush/Arundel to Fontwell. A massive amount of irreversible damage to the environment, wildlife, local residents' way of life, etc all for no benefit.

Reject the grey route

We walk at Binsted .

Why destroy irreplaceable ancient woodland and to extra vast expense when alternatives are cheaper and less destructive. We are constantly hearing how tight budgets are so this is nonsensical unless of course there is a very large (monetary) carrot being dangled .... When will the big guns stop being so greedy and feathering their own nests with little(no) regard to our beautiful countryside , have none of them any moral compass directing them to what is the right thing to do ... I wonder how many developers are rubbing their hands together filling their big brown envelopes in readiness for the fat greedy hands to grab and put in their back pockets with the obligatory scratching of each others backs... All this money should be spent on improving rural public transport to cut down on the need for so many cars and has no one sat in their ivory towers ,heard of climate change .... I guess cutting down trees and shovelling concrete and encouraging more cars on our roads is your way of helping this very real event .... it absolutely beggars believe and beyond stupidity. Transparency is what is needed when these decisions are made !!

1. The Grey Route purposefully brings pollution to a populated area where none previously existed. 2. The Grey Route runs within 150m of the primary school, bringing a dust cloud of pollution to the school. 3. Potential traffic lights at Fontwell will introduce pollution to that village. 4. The route runs alongside a housing development, currently under construction, blighting it. 5. The costings make no allowance for compensation costs to villagers, or the costs of relocating the primary school and Binsted church. By failing to do so, HE grossly misled the public in its Consultation document by giving the impression that the cost/benefits were the same for all options, when they were not. 6. The Route has no proposals for a 30mph stretch between Binsted and Fontwell to reduce pollution. 7. HE does not appear to have used a stochastic model to assess the costs and benefits involved. By failing to use standard business techniques, it has produced misleading results. 8. HE identifies the benefits saved as savings in fuel costs. Given the phasing out of combustion engines, these alleged savings will not occur. 9. HE does not identify the discount rate used to discount the benefits, but given the recent increase in CPI, yields on long-term gilts have increased, thereby reducing the NPV of benefits. It is likely therefore that the Grey Route option will produce a net cost, not a benefit.

The Grey route contradicts the environmental plan for the area and the Country. Protected species as well as humans, will perish to allow the car and lorry to pollute.

Lived here since 1963 and ruinibg the countryside snd our golf course in such a beautiful quiet location

A poor use of money and horribly harmful to the environment

Unjustifiable and unnecessary expense to build just South of existing dual carriageway with horrendous consequences to local life.

As a former resident of Walberton, a pretty village which will be ruined by the proposed route, I urge that the planners think again.

Appreciation of the environment has increased exponentially in the last year or so. This road is a complete aberration with the damage it would do to both physical and natural landscape.

Don’t spoil our beautiful countryside

I honestly can’t believe this option is even an option.