A27 Arundel Bypass: South Downs National Park 'strongly objects' to proposal

The proposed bypass avoids direct incursion into the National Park, 'which the authority welcomes'.

However, there remains 'significant concerns' regarding the impact of the proposal on the setting in respect of landscape character and in views from, and to, the National Park.

A South Downs National Park (SDNP) spokesperson added: "There are concerns regarding the impact on wildlife and biodiversity, as a result of severance caused by the bypass and related effects on habitat quality.

"There also appears to be little consideration of the second purpose of the National Park, as it relates to access and recreation.

"The lack of detailed information around the appearance of structures, associated infrastructure, construction, mitigation and compensation measures has resulted in the authority being unable to make a fully-informed assessment of the impacts on the National Park.

"Therefore, the authority strongly objects to this proposal as presented."

The SDNP said it will continue to work with National Highways and other stakeholders to 'ensure sufficient consideration and action is taken to address the issues raised'.

In January, the developers launched an eight-week consultation with the public. This ended on Tuesday, March 8. Here's everything you need to know about the scheme.

National Highways A27 Arundel bypass programme leader Andrew Jackson, said: "We thank people for their feedback during our consultation on plans build a bypass on the A27 at Arundel which finished last week. We are now analysing the responses and will make a further announcement as soon as we can."

That didn't signal the end of the campaign against the bypass, though, as representatives of local opposition groups met outside the South Downs National Park headquarters in Midhurst on March 10. They pleaded with the planning committee to make the response to National Highways’ consultation a 'robust rejection of the plan'.

Kay Wagland, representing Arundel SCATE, said: “National Highways relies on forecasts showing ever-increasing traffic, but their models have been shown to consistently overstate growth where no road is built.

"It ignores evidence that new road space generates new traffic and the committee for climate change’s warning that car journeys must fall if we’re to meet climate targets, even with the shift to electric vehicles.

"In addition, National Highways’ claims that there is demand for a long-distance south coast highway leads to the design of long stretches of locally inaccessible dual carriageway but their data shows that three-quarters of the traffic at Arundel is travelling less than nine miles and a fifth less than three miles.

"They are not serving local people or even meeting real transport demand.”

Philip Maber, from the Chichester and Arun Green Party, cited the 'ever-accelerating climate and biodiversity catastrophe' as the 'overriding reason' to oppose the grey route.

He added: "We simply cannot — must not — allow this scheme."

Emma Tristram said: “We don’t want to see the necessary protection of the National Park being used by road developers to justify loss and damage to people’s homes, health, safety and lives, rare wildlife, history, heritage and communities. We should be able to preserve all these things."

Campaigners met against outside County Hall in Chichester on Tuesday (March 15) to hand over a petition, with 6,307 signatures. West Sussex County Council is drafting its final response to the bypass proposals.

The county council previously said that it doesn't have 'enough information to properly scrutinise' the plans. Click here to read more.

Have you read?: Hundreds of plastic bottles washed up on coast leading to clean-up operation

Ukraine housing scheme: Would you open your home?