Frustration over ‘lack of information’ on A27 bypass
Dozens of campaigners marched on County Hall on Thursday ahead of a meeting which saw councillors raise frustrations over what they said was a lack of information on plans for the Arundel Bypass.
The 60-strong group of protestors gathered in the rain before handing over a letter to West Sussex County Council laying out their concerns about the proposed ‘grey’ route for the A27.
Earlier this year, National Highways unveiled its updated proposals for 8km (4.9 miles) of new dual carriageway south of the existing A27, from Crossbush in the east to Fontwell roundabout in the west.
But while many recognise the need for something to be done to ease congestion – and support the building of a bypass – the plans on the table have not been embraced by all.
Sally Ward, from Walberton Friends and Neighbours, said: “We share a deep anxiety that National Highways are not listening to our very real concerns. We want to express our strong opposition to National Highways’ plans.”
The march came as the county council’s communities, highways and environment scrutiny committee considered its view on the bypass.
The committee was asked to scrutinise the council’s draft response to National Highways’ eight-week consultation into the proposals.
But while councillors discussed the matter for almost two hours, there was frustration that a string of questions had not been answered in the consultation documents.
Issues highlighted included insufficient information about the proposed Crossbush junction and impact of the scheme on the wider highway network and a lack of evidence over the proposed use of shared footpaths and cycleways.
The committee’s thoughts and recommendations will be submitted to the cabinet before the consultation response is submitted to National Highways.
Its message was essentially that it supported the idea of a bypass but had serious misgivings – and a number of significant questions – about the scheme on the table.
While the report from officers concluded that the council would give ‘in principle’ support to the scheme, it was not a view shared by the committee.
Chris Oxlade (Lab, Bewbush & Ifield West) said: “[We’ve got] a report which basically says we don’t have any information, we don’t have enough detail to go on but we’re asked to support it in principle. It just seems absolutely bizarre that we’re being put in this position.”
Andrew Baldwin (Con, Holbrook) said: “We agree that improvements are needed because the present road provides us with insufficient capacity. But then on the other hand, I’m concerned that this wasn’t our preferred route when it was considered a few years ago. We don’t have the full evidence and we don’t know the likely impact of the scheme – and there are some real concerns that are left unanswered by this consultation.”
Mention was made of the Arundel Alternative – an uninterrupted wide single carriageway between the Ford Road roundabout and Crossbush junction – which has been trumpeted by campaigners as a cheaper, less damaging option.
But the only option on the table now is the grey route – though opinions were voiced that having no new road would be a better choice.
Deborah Urquhart, cabinet member for environment & climate change, told the meeting that the ‘in principle’ support was proposed ‘because it is this county council’s policy to support a bypass’.