Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside
2,356 Comments
M
Marian Barlow
8 years ago
I grew up in Binsted and it would be a travesty to ruin such a special hidden place that has kept its magic in this built up suburban south east of England . We should preserve these places, not build roads through them. I hope planners see sense in not destroying something they will never be able to bring back.
M
Mariamah Mount
8 years ago
I agree that this is a key wildlife area that need protecting
G
Graham Ault
8 years ago
This lovely area and ancient woodland beyond value must not be destroyed for the benefit of motor vehicles. The least damaging option should be chosen.
C
Cathy Ratcliffe
8 years ago
This will damage the historic village totally as well as impact on wildlife and rural business.
J
John Bradshaw
8 years ago
The choices we make today will be judged in years to come by our children, pray we make the right choice and preserve this special place.
P
Pete paine
8 years ago
CHOOSE OPTION 1
J
John Pitt
8 years ago
Please do not destroy such a beautiful and historic landscape.
A
Andrew Ratcliffe
8 years ago
Option 3 looks the best option and is supported by most groups. Failing that Option 1 is less damaging but might not fully address the traffic issues and will cause disruption during the build period.
R
Robert Baly
8 years ago
I wish to object to Option 5A in the strongest terms, and would suggest instead Option 3, modified or otherwise.
J
Jill Etienne
8 years ago
I oppose the a27 being built through Binsted and destroying the countryside.
A
Andrew Foster
8 years ago
A shorter bypass that enlarges the current route is preferable to a far more invasive option that destroys our environment and simply creates more roads.
J
Jennifer arch
8 years ago
I strongly object to the proposed changes to the A27; shortening driving time along a stretch of road at the expense of Sussex countryside is unacceptable. Further pollution will be an abhorrent consequence.
P
Peter McCormack
8 years ago
Though from N Ireland I married a beautiful "English Rose" from southern England and I have lovely memories of this area spent in her company.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
We need to care more for our countryside than our getting from a to b quickly.
J
Jonathan Horwitz
8 years ago
Have visited this beautiful spot. Don't sacrifice it to the Petrol Gods!
R
Rhys Jackson
8 years ago
Option 3, because 5A would be a pointless waste of Home’s being lost.
A
Antony
8 years ago
Do not ruin the scenery of binsted
P
Penelope Arch
8 years ago
Enough destruction to rural England.
People who use cars will have to put up with the queues.
New roads/widening roads = more cars to fill the space.
J
Judith
8 years ago
Please protect Binsted
A
Adrian Taylor
8 years ago
Congestion may mean 'too many vehicles' as much as 'too little road'. Next it will be 'more road, more traffic' – traffic expanding to fill the available road-space. So, by way of self-fulfilling predictions, the south of England becomes a sinkhole for population with a demand for energy whose source is as yet unknown. Let congestion tell its story, and stop overuse despoiling what remains of rural Sussex.
I grew up in Binsted and it would be a travesty to ruin such a special hidden place that has kept its magic in this built up suburban south east of England . We should preserve these places, not build roads through them. I hope planners see sense in not destroying something they will never be able to bring back.
I agree that this is a key wildlife area that need protecting
This lovely area and ancient woodland beyond value must not be destroyed for the benefit of motor vehicles. The least damaging option should be chosen.
This will damage the historic village totally as well as impact on wildlife and rural business.
The choices we make today will be judged in years to come by our children, pray we make the right choice and preserve this special place.
CHOOSE OPTION 1
Please do not destroy such a beautiful and historic landscape.
Option 3 looks the best option and is supported by most groups. Failing that Option 1 is less damaging but might not fully address the traffic issues and will cause disruption during the build period.
I wish to object to Option 5A in the strongest terms, and would suggest instead Option 3, modified or otherwise.
I oppose the a27 being built through Binsted and destroying the countryside.
A shorter bypass that enlarges the current route is preferable to a far more invasive option that destroys our environment and simply creates more roads.
I strongly object to the proposed changes to the A27; shortening driving time along a stretch of road at the expense of Sussex countryside is unacceptable. Further pollution will be an abhorrent consequence.
Though from N Ireland I married a beautiful "English Rose" from southern England and I have lovely memories of this area spent in her company.
We need to care more for our countryside than our getting from a to b quickly.
Have visited this beautiful spot. Don't sacrifice it to the Petrol Gods!
Option 3, because 5A would be a pointless waste of Home’s being lost.
Do not ruin the scenery of binsted
Enough destruction to rural England. People who use cars will have to put up with the queues. New roads/widening roads = more cars to fill the space.
Please protect Binsted
Congestion may mean 'too many vehicles' as much as 'too little road'. Next it will be 'more road, more traffic' – traffic expanding to fill the available road-space. So, by way of self-fulfilling predictions, the south of England becomes a sinkhole for population with a demand for energy whose source is as yet unknown. Let congestion tell its story, and stop overuse despoiling what remains of rural Sussex.