Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside

Please avoid this option. Our woodlands are disappearing under the weight of these schemes

I think all options are a waste of money since it will only get people quicker to the jams at Worthing and chichester

Ancient woodland, traditional hedgerows and farmland and the biodiversity they support are too precious to squander to the car and the perceived convenience of increasingly outmoded transport systems. A decision in favour of Route 5A will be recognised as madness by our grandchildren. Surely it's time for all of us to speak for what is left of rural England? I live more than 200 miles away in the North West but I've walked the South Downs since childhood. Let's pause for further and more mature thought. There has to be a better solution than ploughing ahead and destroying so much that is beautiful and irreplaceable.

The railway bridge at Arundel station is a major cause of congestion. Option 1 is the only sensible option.

Tragic if this by-pass happens

Binstead and ancient woodlands should not be destroyed

what a great place to live, not to pass through at 70 miles an hour. !!!!!!!!

This area is an escape from the over crowded, built up concrete jungle that has and still is swallowing our villages along the A27 and A29. We DO NOT NEED, NOR WANT a bypass All you have to do is stop turning the area into a car park for commuters by ceasing to build more and more houses - requiring more and more bypass roads leading to the building of more and more houses - requiring more and more bypass roads It has become a never ending vicious circle and the local inhabitants are now living in/on a glorified roundabout All we have left is BINSTEAD - PLEASE, leave it alone!

This is an outrage. We're going to destroy the animals natural habitat just because we can't wait to get somewhere. Stupid.

Option 5a seems to be the least cost effective solution. The cost to the environment would be untold it cuts through the heart of the beautiful Binsted woods.

Making it larger will only increase the traffic and the pollution - it will not resolve the problems!

This would be a grossly environmentally irresponsible act of vandalism ~ to destroy ancient woodland, and entire ecosystems which support a diverse population of wildlife , plant and insect life in order to save a few minutes for commuters is tantamount to a crime against nature~ Now when we need trees more than ever in the face of climate change and the pollution from vast numbers of cars this is an act of short sighted self serving ignorance and a complete disconnect to what is most vital and valuable~ We cannot create more land or wait years and years for trees to mature or bring back the ecosytems we destroy for tarmac , petrol stations and more and more car traffic ~ it only opens the door for more traffic and pollution. Only the greed driven and ignorant would allow such a plan to be implemented ~ those who know little or nothing nor care about the natural environment or the people and living creatures that make this area their home.

5a is unacceptable . There is so little rural space left especially with the increasing housing developments and cars. Dividing the village of Binsted and blighting an area that is a rich natural ancient habitat is something that should be avoided at all cost. We do not want to be a concrete corridor for commuters. Specific areas of countryside should be protected.. 5a is also the most expensive and damaging option

As a long term past resident of Arundel, I am horrified to learn of the plans that will so affect the precious land and ecosystems surrounding it. I cannot see how existing traffic problems can possibly warrant this destruction

The cheapest, least disruptive and safest against flooding option is a revised option. Revision by including a flyover at the Ford Road roundabout as opposed to a footbridge, this could start at the west end of the bridge across to the other side. It would maintain traffic flow, reduce congestion and be better for the environment all round.

I object to proposed Option 5A.

Very bad news for the surviving countryside. Once it's gone, it gone.

The destruction of this special countryside is much too high a price for shortening a journey past Arundel by a few minutes. It will further open the Arun estuary for a massive development which will destroy Arundel as we know and love it.

Although I have some sympathy with the proposed options by the various councils for the Arundel bypass, I do not think Option A5 should be considered. It is an ancient woodland and can never be replaced. It would be a travesty to make a bypass there, a Saxon meeting place etc.

I object to options 3 and 5A and I object to option 1 in its present form which is excessively distructive to wildlife and this could be minimised by better design alterations