Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside

There is absolutely no need for this much destruction through valuable countryside, woodland, a village, wild life ect to save 5 minutes in 2041 . To spend 250million to save 5 mins is ridiculous . The information given by Highways England is so incorrect that surely giving the public misleading information to get more support on specific routes such as the 5A is actually illegal? Infact they are lieing to the public by providing such misleading in accurate information.

Option 5A will wreck our community, homes and businesses, destroy precious woodland environments. Please make a wise choice and save Binsted.

the historic village of Binsted is set in wooded countryside in the parish of Walberton, West Sussex. Partly within the National Park, it is a haven for wildlife, with an active community and rural businesses. Many visitors value Binsted for quiet recreation. The Binsted option would sever Binsted’s community, and destroy its beauty and tranquillity.

I really think Highways England need to consider carefully the grave implications of this bypass - it will create irreversible damage and for what purpose??

Reject Option 5A through Binsted. Recommend Option 1 with least damage to countryside and its shorter.

More trees. Not less

I would rather sit for a while in traffic than watch this area be churned up. It's too beautiful. I will get the train. I have 3 daughters living in Brighton so do this journey often.

Good luck

Please consider alternative options. Once its gone its gone. Stop pandering to the perceived needs of the car driving public and consider the health and well being of people living and enjoying these communities.

It is vital the beautiful and historic village of Binsted is not cut in two and destroyed by a dual carriageway bypass around Arundel when other, less damaging, options are available

Instead of building a bypass that destroys what is irreplaceable and precious, we should be devising strategies to reduce our dependence on cars and lorries. I stand with the petitioners.

The proposed dual carriageway near Binstead village and through the woods would be an environmental disaster for the local area.

Save this wonderful place

Please think again. .There must be a better option than 5a. ..save Binsted and all its beautiful surrounding woodland and countyside

Binsted should be protected not used for the Arundel bypass.

Clearly the A27 traffic problem has to be resolved, but with minimum impact on our local communities and the environment. Both Option 3 and 5A are by far the worst options. The cost and damage of these two routes would be grossly disproportionate for the small saving in traffic time. The communities of Tortington, Binsted and Walberton would be seriously impacted. Therefore Option 1 is the logical choice since it would joined up with the already existing dual carriageway which starts shortly after the White Swan pub and would be almost half the cost of the other two options.

No to the bypass!

Of all the 3 options for the Arundel Bypass, the option 5 A is the most damaging in every aspect. It would be the worse choice possible. It would destroy the direct environment of Binsted village, ruin its residents' quality of life in terms of noise and exhaust pollution, and just split its community. Binsted and Walberton at the level of Yapton Lane are being sacrificed in the most arbitrary manner by not looking for a more suitable alternative. Are not people more important than a few trees? How about reviewing Option 3?

Save Binsted!

No to section 5a.