A27 Arundel Bypass
Please sign our Petition to tell Highways England to respect the environment and climate emergency UK Parliament has recognized. We want them
- to choose a moderate mainly online solution to improve traffic flow at Arundel, and
- to reject major offline bypass options which would cause local species extinctions and increase carbon emissions and other pollution due to induced traffic.
Signing is also opting in to be kept informed about our campaign to save Arun's beautiful countryside. Your contact details will not be shared with any other organizations or used for any other purposes. Should you wish to not receive occasional emails at important stages in this battle; an 'unsubscribe' link is provided at the foot of every email.
We petition the Secretary of State for Transport, the South Downs National Park Authority, Highways England, Nick Herbert MP, West Sussex County Council, Arun District Council, Arundel Town Council and Walberton Parish Council, to:
- REJECT Option 5A for the Arundel bypass through Binsted and Tortington villages and countryside and the Arun valley watermeadows, and other major offline bypass routes which are similarly damaging.
- RECOMMEND that another option, less damaging to countryside and villages, should be considered: the Arundel Alternative, a wide single carriageway solution on the Option 1 alignment.
- Option 5A brings no greater economic or environmental benefit than the Option 1 alignment
- The Option 1 alignment, whether in wide single carriageway version or not, achieves as good benefits at massively reduced financial and environmental cost.
- You care about future generations, species loss and climate change
- 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. Option 5A would sever Binsted’s community, and destroy its beauty and tranquillity. It would also damage the historic village and landscape of Tortington near Arundel.
After signing our petition, please support us by:
- Following us on www.twitter.com/arundelbypass
- Liking our Facebook page www.facebook.com/arundelbypass
- Responding to consultations and writing in the media and to your political representatives urging everyone to reject Option 5A.
To find out more about the Bypass options:
- Click here for the Arundel Bypass Neighbourhood Committee's website
- Click here for the Arundel A27 Forum's website
- Click here for Arundel SCATE's website
To find out more about the rural communities affected:
- Click here to read about Binsted Village, its active community and businesses
- Click here to read about the natural and historic environment of the area (Maves)
- Click here to read about the parish of Walberton, Binsted & Fontwell
- Click here to read about Tortington Village
The last public consultation on the Arundel bypass was in 2017. The total number of voters then was nearly 10,000, but less than 1400 (14.5%) voted in favour of 5A.. Today, more voices - including your voice - need to be heard, and heard more loudly, to Save Our Sussex. Please share with your friends and encourage them to join you in signing.
Highways England has chosen to take forward A27 Arundel Bypass Option 5A, their Preferred Route, to the next stage of consultation. Option 5A is the most damaging Option for the natural and rural environment and to the special qualities of the South Downs National Park.
- Option 5A was chosen after a badly executed Consultation, on a poor range of options excluding local suggestions. Indequate and misleading information was given to consultees. It was chosen in the face of evidence and objections by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), Natural England, and others.
- The SDNPA brought a Judicial Review case on the grounds that impacts on the National Park, and options with less impact, had not been properly considered; local environmental campaigner Dr Emma Tristram, brought a Judicial Review case on the grounds of the many errors and omissions in the misdirected consultation.
- That's why Highways England are now having to hold another non-statutory consultation in 2019. They say it is because they have found new environmental data: they have, but it is 'new' because, in the last consultation, they chose to ignore the environmental data provided by local charity Arun Countryside Trust (MAVES), continuing to claim for example that they had no evidence of bats after ACT-MAVES had sent them professional survey reports recording 13 species. Their own surveys, after the Judicial Review forced them to survey all the routes before choosing a new Preferred Option, have confirmed the facts that they wished to ignore.