Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside
2,356 Comments
B
Beverley Browning
8 years ago
Save Binsted!
C
Callum knight
8 years ago
Madness!!
T
Tanith
8 years ago
Save Binsted
S
Sue
8 years ago
Stop ruining our precious countryside. This problem should have been looked into 20 years ago.
L
Laurence Anderson
8 years ago
Definite NO to option 5A!
Option 3 is still ridiculous but not quite as bad as 5a...
Option 1 if anything, but let's be honest it is a million times better to solve the actual problem in the first place of way to many vehicles on the road pointlessly driving from A to B then back again it is an Insane way of carrying on and whatever is done how long is it really going to last given how busy they roads are now and say 20 years ago... Give it another 20 after this and bam exact same problem again then only going to get worse!!! Well that is my insight whatever the case is just NOT 5A crazy idea especially as the difference in peak times is so marginal x
J
Jamie wells
8 years ago
Dont you dare even think about putting a road through binsted
Z
Zoe
8 years ago
No to 5a
M
Mandy Beller
8 years ago
5A is absolute travesty, use a different route & preserve the ancient woodland as it should be. This will affect livlihoods & wildlife
E
Emily Staker
8 years ago
route 5 will destroy a farm in which i have lived on for 24 years now. also not to mention ancient woodland with so many species that some are protected which MUST not be touched or threathened!
D
David Haxell
8 years ago
Why has a tunnel not been discussed? Then the full by pass could be built with little damage to country, if this Government has money to spend on HS2 it can damn well afford a tunnel under binsted!
P
Phil sowden
8 years ago
I strongly object to the planned route through Binstead villages and the country side and favour the shorter less damaging bypass option 1, as I consider this option to use most of existing infrastructure and would be more cost effective. I also feel that in providing a bypass around Arundel other areas of the A27 need to be addressed to eliviate traffic congestion., rather than shoving it farther down the A27.
J
John Delany
8 years ago
This proposal is outrageous and is the outcome of some seriously deficient research and thinking which shows little regard for this sublime area and for those who are fortunate enough to live here.
M
Maureen
8 years ago
Why can't the authorities who make these decisions tell the truth, they fudge and dissemble until I believe none of them.
A
Angela Hendrie
8 years ago
We need to save Binstead .
M
Miriam Orriss
8 years ago
As important as improving the traffic flow on the A27, it's not acceptable if that is done at the expense of our environment, wildlife habitat and the rural community. These must be preserved. Please work with community and find listen to their objections and proactively explore their alternative suggestions.
J
Jack Blakeley
8 years ago
No to option 5A!
P
Peter saggs
8 years ago
Long over due
N
Nick Rau
8 years ago
No! to damaging road schemes trashing our countryside.
J
jane power
8 years ago
Please minimise damage to the countryside and take the shorter bypass option.
M
molly chandler
8 years ago
I reject option 5A as it destroys amazing landscapes and severley affects the farmers as it cuts through countless fields which grows crops for the peoples benefits and makes your bread! It also destroys the footpaths and bridleway connections with Binsted woods. The new proposed road runs so close to many houses through Binsted, it will make the peaceful haven a very loud and will effect the noise levels in walberton and neighbouring areas also. The best route in my mind is option 3 through the national park ancient woodland. It has the least impact on the environment both short and long term. The surrounding woodland that would remain will contain the noise of the busy road so that both arundel and binsted/walberton can remain peaceful breath taking landscapes.
Save Binsted!
Madness!!
Save Binsted
Stop ruining our precious countryside. This problem should have been looked into 20 years ago.
Definite NO to option 5A! Option 3 is still ridiculous but not quite as bad as 5a... Option 1 if anything, but let's be honest it is a million times better to solve the actual problem in the first place of way to many vehicles on the road pointlessly driving from A to B then back again it is an Insane way of carrying on and whatever is done how long is it really going to last given how busy they roads are now and say 20 years ago... Give it another 20 after this and bam exact same problem again then only going to get worse!!! Well that is my insight whatever the case is just NOT 5A crazy idea especially as the difference in peak times is so marginal x
Dont you dare even think about putting a road through binsted
No to 5a
5A is absolute travesty, use a different route & preserve the ancient woodland as it should be. This will affect livlihoods & wildlife
route 5 will destroy a farm in which i have lived on for 24 years now. also not to mention ancient woodland with so many species that some are protected which MUST not be touched or threathened!
Why has a tunnel not been discussed? Then the full by pass could be built with little damage to country, if this Government has money to spend on HS2 it can damn well afford a tunnel under binsted!
I strongly object to the planned route through Binstead villages and the country side and favour the shorter less damaging bypass option 1, as I consider this option to use most of existing infrastructure and would be more cost effective. I also feel that in providing a bypass around Arundel other areas of the A27 need to be addressed to eliviate traffic congestion., rather than shoving it farther down the A27.
This proposal is outrageous and is the outcome of some seriously deficient research and thinking which shows little regard for this sublime area and for those who are fortunate enough to live here.
Why can't the authorities who make these decisions tell the truth, they fudge and dissemble until I believe none of them.
We need to save Binstead .
As important as improving the traffic flow on the A27, it's not acceptable if that is done at the expense of our environment, wildlife habitat and the rural community. These must be preserved. Please work with community and find listen to their objections and proactively explore their alternative suggestions.
No to option 5A!
Long over due
No! to damaging road schemes trashing our countryside.
Please minimise damage to the countryside and take the shorter bypass option.
I reject option 5A as it destroys amazing landscapes and severley affects the farmers as it cuts through countless fields which grows crops for the peoples benefits and makes your bread! It also destroys the footpaths and bridleway connections with Binsted woods. The new proposed road runs so close to many houses through Binsted, it will make the peaceful haven a very loud and will effect the noise levels in walberton and neighbouring areas also. The best route in my mind is option 3 through the national park ancient woodland. It has the least impact on the environment both short and long term. The surrounding woodland that would remain will contain the noise of the busy road so that both arundel and binsted/walberton can remain peaceful breath taking landscapes.