Highways England has announced the grey route as its preferred route for the A27 Arundel bypass. In doing so, it has ignored community proposals for an affordable, low impact solution. Instead it has opted for a climate-wrecking dual carriageway. This will cause serious destruction of landscape, wildlife and communities in the Arun Valley. It is also way beyond its budget of £250 million.

Highways England’s proposals for Arundel are the latest in a long line of attempts to dual this short stretch of A27 single carriageway over the past 40 years. Each has failed as the environmental impact was found to be unacceptable. The threatened area of the Arun Valley, Binsted, Tortington and Walberton is exceptional in its ecology. It contains rare bats, butterflies, dormice and chalk streams alongside badgers, larks, hedges, veteran trees, valuable and ancient woodland.

SCATE believes that this announcement flies in the face of all the evidence about the need to tackle climate change and loss of wildlife. Highways England seem to be on a different planet, ignoring the warnings of Sir David Attenborough and others that we need to do things differently. 

Building bigger roads just increases traffic and carbon emissions. In this case it will also destroy valuable wildlife habitats, local communities and the setting of the South Downs National Park.

The solution is not a new, highly expensive, dual carriageway. Yet Highways England as a road building company is the one tasked with solving our transport problems. Unsurprisingly, it only ever comes up with new roads as the solution. Instead the money would be better spent on a low impact solution and walking, cycling and public transport.

Would you believe it, but Highways England has gone and launched another consultation on Arundel after it found yet more errors in the public consultation documentation held between 30 August and 24 October 2019.  This is the third set of errors identified in this last round of consultation.

What makes this worse is that Highways England is a government company (i.e. public) with substantial resources to hand, yet it consistently fails to get the basics right.  The 2019 consultation came about after the South Downs National Park Authority and a grandmother sought leave for judicial review about the way Highways England had carried out a previous consultation in 2017 and came to its preferred option, announced in May 2018.

Given the problems caused by rushing ahead without properly checking its facts, you would have thought Highways England would have learnt from its mistakes and ensured it had its house in order before pressing ahead with the 2019 consultation.  But no, within weeks of the start it had to announce two sets of corrections and now it has been pressed into announcing more and having to go out to the public again.

Are these really the people you would trust to look after what is a very special corner of England?  Their proposal will cause significant damage to the South Downs National Park and destroy ancient woodland.

Anyone wishing to comment has until 11:59pm, Sunday, 1 March 2020 when the latest consultation ends. You can also email any comments to: A27ArundelBypass@highwaysengland.co.uk

Since the end of Highways England’s consultation on its proposed options for an A27 Arundel Bypass, it has all gone rather quiet.  It is likely that Highways England is analysing the feedback and no doubt will ignore what it doesn’t want to hear and will press ahead regardless.  Another tactic it has employed elsewhere is to lump all responses together from specific actions and considered them as a single objection, even when people have personalised their responses.

Another reason for the silence is that Highways England is probably waiting to see what he new Government will prioritise in terms of infrastructure and where it will focus its energy and resources.  This could affect whether there is sufficient funding to continue with the proposed bypass, given that only two of the proposed options came anywhere near the available budget, i.e. being affordable.

In the meantime, member groups continue to be active and keeping a watchful eye on any developments.

We are urging all our members to respond to the consultation on the A27 Arundel Bypass and to encourage friends, family and colleagues to do likewise. As Craig Bennett, CEO of Friends of the Earth found out when he visited Arundel, all of Highways England’s options increase traffic and carbon emissions. A crazy situation at a time of climate emergency and that’s before considering all the other damage a new dual carriageway would cause.

Please fill in Highways England’s online questionnaire where we would recommend selecting ‘do nothing’ but then add in the comment box that you support a 40mph wide single carriageway between Crossbush and Ford roundabout (the Arundel Alternative) instead.

Or select the ‘beige’ or ‘cyan’ routes but then add in the comment box that while you support the alignment, you don’t support a 70mph dual carriageway and would rather see a 40mph wide single carriageway between Crossbush and Ford roundabout (the Arundel Alternative) instead.

If you don’t have time to fill in the questionnaire but would like to object to Highways England’s proposals and support the Arundel Alternative instead along with better sustainable transport links please take our action.

You can also find more info on Arundel SCATE’s leaflet.

Many thanks, and don’t forget to tell others about this too!

Highways England doesn’t seem to have learnt any lessons from the two judicial reviews it was threatened with last year over its proposals for the A27 at Arundel.  It is still publishing inaccurate information and it is still insisting that 70mph, highly damaging dual carriageways are appropriate.  This is hardly having regard to the special purposes of the South Downs National Park, for apart from a tokenistic option that skirts the Park (that’s unrealistic as it is so expensive and still very damaging), it has changed little in its approach.

Fortunately, there is a solution, the Arundel Alternative, that local people have come up with that would resolve the hold ups at Arundel at peak times.  This would involve a small length of 40mph wide single carriageway from Crossbush to the Ford Roundabout.  It would be far cheaper to build and cause far less damage and would be unlikely to impact on the South Downs National Park.

However, for it to have a chance of going forward we need your help.  Please respond to Highways England’s consultation that runs until 11:59 pm, 24th October, 2019.

Please fill in the online questionnaire where we would recommend selecting ‘do nothing’ but then add in the comment box that you support a 40mph wide single carriageway between Crossbush and Ford roundabout (the Arundel Alternative) instead.

Or select the ‘beige’ or ‘cyan’ routes but then add in the comment box that while you support the alignment, you don’t support a 70mph dual carriageway and would rather see a 40mph wide single carriageway between Crossbush and Ford roundabout (the Arundel Alternative) instead.

To find out more information and to get more guidance on how to respond to Highways England’s consultation please see the new Arundel Alternative website.  Or you can find more info on Arundel SCATE’s leaflet.

If you don’t have time to fill in the questionnaire but would like to support the Arundel Alternative, please email Highways England at: A27ArundelBypass@highwaysengland.co.uk opposing all six of their options on the suggested following grounds (please use your own words):

• All options will increase carbon emissions and make it harder to meet legal target of net-zero carbon by 2050
• Don’t believe there is a need for the capacity on the A27 – future traffic projections have nearly always overestimated demand (and we actually need to see traffic reduction)
• Want the money invested in sustainable transport instead and a cheaper, less damaging road (the Arundel Alternative) avoiding the current bottlenecks
• Will destroy ancient woodland and harm the South Downs National Park

Many thanks!

We’ve heavily criticised Highways England’s proposals for the A27 at Arundel, announced today at the start of an 8 week consultation which ends on 24 October.  Highways England is consulting on six options, only two of which it can afford to build (p28, consultation document).  All of the schemes are highly damaging to the South Downs National Park or surrounding landscapes and all would increase traffic and carbon emissions.

We’re calling for the public money set aside for an Arundel bypass to be reallocated for improved public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure and on a cheaper on-line single carriageway mini-bypass which would avoid the key bottlenecks.

Henri Brocklebank, chair of SCATE (Director of Conservation at Sussex Wildlife Trust) said: “We would question having a consultation on options, most of which are unaffordable.  Only two of the six options are within Highways England’s budget and all are highly damaging.  We need them to go back to the drawing board and come back with something sensible.”

Brenda Pollack, vice-chair of SCATE (Friends of the Earth South East campaigner) said: “Highways England appear to live in a parallel universe.  We have a climate emergency and new challenging carbon reduction targets, yet they are proposing to increase traffic and carbon emissions with these proposals.  We need schemes that reduce traffic to meet our climate targets whilst protecting nature.”

Kia Trainor, vice-chair of SCATE (director of CPRE Sussex) said: “We are appalled at the dismissive way Highways England treats the alternatives to road building.  They completely fail to consider the improvements that could be achieved in bus and rail if the budget for the road was spent on these forms of transport instead.  Investing the money in a different way would safeguard the countryside and allow people a better quality of life.”

SCATE is advocating that people respond to the consultation opposing all six options on the suggested following grounds:

• All options will increase carbon emissions and make it harder to meet legal target of net-zero carbon by 2050
• Don’t believe there is a need for the capacity on the A27 – future traffic projections have nearly always overestimated demand (and we actually need to see traffic reduction)
• Want the money invested in sustainable transport instead and a cheaper, less damaging road (the Arundel Alternative) avoiding the current bottlenecks
• Will destroy ancient woodland and harm the South Downs National Park

Email your objection to Highways England at: A27ArundelBypass@highwaysengland.co.uk

Or you can fill in the online questionnaire where we would recommend selecting ‘do nothing’ and then adding in the comment box that you support a 40mph wide single carriageway between Crossbush and Ford roundabout (the Arundel Alternative) instead.

Recently two legal challenges against Highways England’s preferred route decision for the Arundel Bypass have been withdrawn. Both the South Downs National Park Authority and local resident Dr Emma Tristram have now decided to halt their cases since Highways England announced it would be running a further public consultation in spring 2019.

Both parties believe that the new consultation should address many of the concerns they had raised, but SCATE remains worried about the lack of real choice coming forward.

The announcement of a new consultation, plus the fact that Highways England have agreed to pay both parties’ legal costs, is validation that the Park Authority and Dr Tristram were right to pursue their challenges.

Although Highways England says it will issue new traffic data, it will still be consulting on the same route options as the 2017 consultation. This brings little relief to those w­­ho want to see a scheme which does the least possible harm to our precious countryside. We believe that previous options consulted on remain highly damaging and were supported by inaccurate data.

While it is good to see Highways England committing to im­­proved use of data and evidence and going back to the public for input, SCATE challenges Highways England to present clear evidence on a diversity of options, untainted by political preferences.

Unless they put new options forward – along the lines of the purple route being suggested by Arundel SCATE – we can’t see how a sensible and positive solution can emerge. The local transport authority (West Sussex) should be working with the Department for Transport on a package of measures that remedies local transport problems. This must use the latest data on travel and how people live, work and shop in the 21^st century.

SCATE and other transport interest groups will be meeting with Highways England staff to press these points in December.

Read more

• Find out about SDNPA’s decision to withdraw their legal challenge
• Sign the petition to help stop Highways England from destroying Arundel’s countryside

Highways England has announced that it intends to consult again on the Arundel bypass options in Spring 2019.  It says this: “will give local people a fresh look at all the viable options for upgrading the A27 using the latest available information.” 

It goes on to say that: “important new evidence is available which merits putting the plans to the public again. This new information includes a redesign of the western end of the scheme where it re-joins the existing A27, updated traffic modelling results and updated data on and enhancements of the alternative Options 1 and 3.”

To many this seems that Highways England is jumping before it is pushed.  It appears to be pre-empting criticism that is likely to arise at the forthcoming judicial review, scheduled for the end of November. Here it is being challenged over the quality and misleading nature of the information it presented in the last round of consultation that led to option 5A being selected as its preferred route: an option that scars the National Park, destroys ancient woodland and other high quality habitats, as well as bisecting Binsted village.

However, there is nothing in this revised approach to suggest that Highways England is doing anything but the minimum that it thinks necessary to force this unpopular and highly damaging road through. Even then it may not succeed as nothing in this announcement appears to address the National Park Authority’s concerns that Highways England has not looked properly at options that would cause no harm to the National Park itself (such as the single carriageway New Purple route).

It is not good enough for Highways England to keep pushing ahead with a slightly tweaked version of what it previously proposed, while ignoring the fundamental concerns with that approach.  It should be acting in the public interest and that includes considering the wider and damaging impacts of road building. Any new consultation needs to include a proper and impartial appraisal of all options, including options previously dismissed that do minimal or no harm to the National Park and avoid significant loss of ancient woodland and other important habitats.

Highways England cannot continue to exist in its own little bubble. After all we’ve just had the warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with transport’s carbon emissions seriously off-target (and new roads create new traffic which just add to the problem). This is on top of already well-documented concerns around air pollution and obesity, all linked to excessive car use and costing the NHS billions.  UK biodiversity is also under threat.

Never more so than now, Highways England needs to be taking A New Direction and to start coming up with 21^st century solutions, rather than continuing with the failed and hugely expensive mistakes from the past. Unfortunately, while this new consultation offers an opportunity to reset its approach, it would appear from what it has said so far that it remains firmly off message.