Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside

Please look at the alternatives

C. Grayling to blame, as usual ?

I value the Sussex countryside having been at school in Sussex and having worked in Sussex

As a Sussex native I am appalled by the idea of yet more destruction of the Downs and local village communities

The unnecessary destruction of Ancient Woodland is in violation of government wish to be the greenest parliament yet and an abomination to your own policies. Please use a less destructive alternative, of which I understand there are several. Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to produce and only days to destroy.

I am strongly opposed to Option 5A because it would destroy wild life habitats and also historic villages and scenery

Another ghastly road plan, lethal for wildlife and for beautiful places.

Ancient woodlands are so precious - there has to be a better way!

I cannot believe that this destructive option would be the preferred choice. No doubt its the cheapest and thatt's all that matters to the Philistines at Highways England. Pleae reconsider.

Please don't destroy the National Park.

I know the South Downs well having cycled there on many occasions and do not want to see this bypass option on a National Park. It needs protecting, not destroying.

Although I don't live in the area, I know it well enough (an aunt and uncle used to live nearby in Angmering) to know that Highways England must think again. Amongst other things, the matter of increased pollution from more and faster motor traffic must be better factored in to HE's thinking and planning. In short: do we in the UK, already the 'dirty man of Europe' really have to go on and on improving the lot of the motor vehicle?

Before the war(!) I used to live in Sussex quite near Arundel.When there are perfectly good alternatives it seems ludicrous to chose such a destructive option.

Do not destroy what is valuble and valued

Please ensure climate change actions are included in the design- so more trains, buses and cycle routes are needed.

No way.

You must be kidding, no.

The usual "roads more important than the environment and people!" from a government department.

I like the sound of the suggested alternative to Option 5A. It is much more environmentally friendly by increasing the use of public transport and cycling. We cannot keep elevating cars over beautiful and important countryside.

Road-building is now old-fashioned and has been shown to be a flawed approach to the strategic management of mass transportation. To pursue this in a way that irrevocably damages ancient, beautiful and protected landscapes is perverse and must be stopped.