Skip to main content

Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside

2,356 Comments

C
Carol Soulsby
8 years ago

We need to ptotect these areas, there is no going back.

B
Ben Elkin
8 years ago

These changes would bring, along with the ongoing problem of masses of lorries running through Yapton, more heavy traffic through Yapton from the new roads which would turn the small child friendly village into a more dangerous area for the kids that play in the village. Crossing the road to go to the shop would become a bigger task than it should be

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

I sully support option 1 and totally reject option 5a.

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

I believe option 3 would provide the best compromise between damaging ancient woodland and alleviating traffic through Arundel. Option 5a is extremely distructive we need to move forward with the times but make sure we’re looking after nature! Also looking at the junction where Yapton Road joins the new western junction and A27 is an accident black spot in the making and should be redesigned if option 5a goes ahead. The A27 is already a dangerous road with so many junctions it should be made safer!

C
Claire wood
8 years ago

We need a bypass but not through binstead there are alternative options that will not disturb the wildlife

D
Denise Martlew
8 years ago

No one who has been to Binsted and it's surround ing fields and woods can seriously suggest that this is a preferred option .... you have to ask Who and Why ... the least destructive, least expensive remains option 1, utilising what is in place and improving on it.

C
cassandra Morley
8 years ago

I object to the 5a option

N
Nadine Hubble
8 years ago

8 lanes of traffic 5 houses away from where we live?! And a substantial junction nearby too?! We reside within the south downs national park, why isn't this area being more sensitively considered or completely protected. Option 5A as currently illustrated is an absurd idea, especially from the final, newly proposed intersection just before it reaches Shellbridge Rd.

S
Sue Hutch
8 years ago

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Pure madness

P
Philip Maber
8 years ago

Single carriageway Route 1

S
Sharon meadmore
8 years ago

Bypass should not go through Binstead. Other options must be explored

N
nanda heemskerk
8 years ago

I object to option 5a. I simply think to much natural habitat for all the animals that live there will be destroyed this way! Also beautiful trees will have to be destroyed!

H
Hugh Dunkerley
8 years ago

This country already suffers from low biodiversity. A road such as this will only do more damage. And for what? A few minutes saved.

H
Helen Betteridge
8 years ago

There will very soon be no countryside left to get to - only roads. Government should be looking at incentives to cut the amount of traffic, such as improved public transport, not building more road for yet more cars and lorrys. We need a more sustainable plan - this is just madness.

L
Lynne Bell
8 years ago

Option 5a would be a complete disaster for this beautiful historic village and the surrounding countryside.

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

New roads only lead to more congestion. If this bypass goes ahead it will be clogged up in several years. Widening the M25 never works. It just encourages more people into cars and creates more traffic jams and pollution. The same will happen here. Give people a proper alternative to using their cars. Subsidise public transport instead or subsidising roads. Have an integrated public transport system that is effective and means that people can use it for work and leisure.

A
Amanda Haigh
8 years ago

I support option 1 or 3

P
Peter Haigh
8 years ago

I support option 3

P
Pam
8 years ago

No way 5a

M
Mike Taylor
8 years ago

This is not acceptable or viable for this area of natural beauty.