Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside

These places are precious

This route a ridiculous proposal and makes no economic sense whatsoever. This combined with the appalling destruction of a beautiful Sussex village means that the Binstead option is a definite no goer in my opinion.

This is highly suspicious and all claims regarding costs and so called evidence needs to be absolutely transparent regarding sources and when they were done. A few freedom of information requests will be going in soon.

Only 3% of the British isles is still covered in woodland we need to cherish what we have left .

Please do not bulldoze this lovely village.

Please consider the impact of destroying binsted's beautiful ancient wood and surrounds in both routes 3 and 5. Our children and our children's children need to be able to experience this unspoiled part of Sussex as have many generations before them. The nature and history or the area matters and is so very valuable as the heart of the area.

Everything should be done to protect the Booster Woods.

Protect what nature we have left, it is vital.

Option 1 is the only route worth considering. It does not go through Arundel any more than the existing bypass which could be widened. Why spoil more beautiful countryside and woodland with much endangered wildlife. Routes 3 or 5a are more costly and through our National Park

Binsted is a beautiful and historical important village and a rare example of unspoiled countryside south of the Downs that should be celebrated and protected not ploughed through. Although small it hosts a vibrant and richly diverse community who care deeply about the precious woods, lanes, paths and fields they work hard to take care of. Option 1 is the least worst and only feasible option.

Support amended Option 1 route but with grade separated underpass to a continuous A27 possible 3 lane route across the existing Ford Road roundabout. Have written letter to HE, with drawings....will copy

I reject the proposed route for the Arundel bypass but would be open to further options being investigated which are less damaging to the countryside. In addition, whilst Arundel might need a bypass this should make cognizance to protecting the historic town and its local environment.

Why would you even consider cutting this new road through the beautiful Binsted area rather than using and upgrading the infrastructure you have. Of course no one wants this in their back yard so you are obliged to seek the least environmentally damaging route - soon there will be no countryside left in Sussex.

I have visted this part of the world many times and love the beauty and history of Binstead which would be absolutely destroyed if option 5 is chosen.I fully support this petition to protect this beautiful landscape and its wildlife

Disgraceful!

I cannot see how sacrificing one community fir the convenience of another can be morally justifiable. Think again

It is wrong to build yet another road to destroy another beautiful part of rural England. Binsted is a close knit community which would be completely fragmented as a result. We should be protecting our ever diminishing wildlife rich rural areas.

No to option 5 through Binsted...no need for this! Use the dual carriageway that's there already.

More expensive. Need to utilise existing route as much as possible to reduce environmental damage. Destruction of the hamlet of Binsted Part of Binsted route always wet posing extra cost. Noise impact for Binsted and Walberton. An unnessessarily complex westerly junction. Severe impact on rare habitat flora and fauna. Loss of high grade agricultural land. Disruption of local communications and noise and visual impact on the dip slope of the Downs. Damage to sites of archeological importance.

No!!!!