A27 Arundel Bypass

[sotonsteve]

Where is the article?

[jackal]

Sometimes it will require you to answer some questions before reading. From memory it gave opinions from 5 local 'figures', three in favour of a bypass (local politicians/chamber of commerce types), two against (from unknown NIMBY groups). There was criticism of option 5A as going too close to a village, while those 'in favour' generally preferred option 3.

The local MP has been a long time supporter of option 3: https://www.spiritfm.net/news/sussex-ne ... -revealed/ Seems like it has momentum.

[B4444]

Driving through today, I noticed noticeboards displaying this web site https://www.onearundel.co.uk/.
I thought previous schemes had been scuppered because they would spoil the view from the castle. I also think that with a bypass, all that will happen (eastbound), is the queue for Worthing will just get longer!

[Berk]

I notice they seem to be favouring option 3, which is similar to the former pink/blue route. Personally I would've favoured 5A, but whatever, just as long as it goes into examination and gets built.

Could I be greedy and say they could do with two bypasses?? Option 3/5A for the A27, and option 1 for local traffic?? I think that would work much better. You wouldn't need to build option 1 as D2, S2 would be fine. The Causeway can then be a local road.

[GeekyJames]

a very insightful article from the OneArundel group:

Option 3 or Option 5A?

Having addressed the question of whether or not Arundel needs a Bypass (in August Newsletter IV), which it surely does, and reviewed Option 1 (in September Newsletter I), we have assessed which of Options 3 or 5A is best for Arundel.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both Options, but having previously been a strong supporter of the Government’s original pink/blue ‘preferred route’, OneArundel has changed its view.

We are now convinced that if an A27 Bypass is to be provided at Arundel, then Option 5A is the best of the three routes that have been put forward by Highways England in the Consultation Document and the associated supporting documents.

The purpose of this Newsletter is therefore to set out the reasons why we have come to this conclusion, highlighting the pros and cons of Options 3 and 5A. So, what are the facts?

Option 3 (the old pink/blue route) would be a new offline dual carriageway linking Crossbush junction with the existing A27 very close to Havenwood Park to the west of Arundel. It would go through the South Downs National Park and about 24 hectares of Ancient Woodland at Tortington Common.
Option 5A would be a new offline dual carriageway linking Crossbush junction with the existing A27 in the vicinity of the Yapton Lane junction to the west of Arundel. It would go through the South Downs National Park and farmland, as well as about 6 hectares of Ancient Woodland to the north of Binsted village.
Neither Option 3 nor Option 5A would involve the demolition of any dwellings
Option 5A is slightly longer than Option 3
Option 3 would cost £260m, whilst Option 5A would be slightly cheaper and cost £250m
Option 3 has a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.0, whilst Option 5A has a better BCR of 2.6
In terms of value for money, Option 5A is better than Option 3
Option 3 would divert 23% of the traffic currently rat-running through the SDNP on the A29 and the A284 (a total of minus 3,300 vpd). However Option 5A would divert 36% of this traffic (a total of minus 4,300 vpd)
The modelling results demonstrate that, in terms of overall network summary statistics and from a traffic perspective, Option 5A is the best performing network for Arundel. It is better than either Option1 or Option 3
Both Option 3 and Option 5A impact adversely on the South Downs National Park, as well as the local Ancient Woodland. Both have significant though similar environmental constraints, and both need to be given special consideration under national planning policy
Option 3 is expected to compromise the ecological integrity of the Binsted Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS)
OneArundel’s original opinion before the public consultation paperwork was published on 22 August by Highways England was that Option 3 (pink/blue) was the most attractive of the Options, but we now need to consider five significant changes which have occurred since 1993 when the pink/blue route was designated as the Government’s “Preferred Route. These changes are:
The designation of the South Downs National Park which includes Tortington Common to the south of the current A27
The redefinition of Ancient Woodland, which now includes the re-planted Tortington Common, as well as Binsted Wood
The designation of Binsted Wood, Tortington Common and Stewards Copse (close to Arundel) as the Binsted Wood Area of Special Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) – which is also called a Local Wildlife Site (LWS)
The publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which gives emphasis to the protection of National Parks and Ancient Woodland
The publication of the National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS) which governs nationally significant road and rail infrastructure projects, as is the case with this A27 Arundel Bypass proposal
Of these, the most important change is the designation of the SDNP and the need for Highways England to respect the SDNP and its special qualities in its decision making. The SDNP is a nationally designated landscape, and HE has a statutory duty to have regard to the purposes of the National Park. The SDNPA is therefore a key consultee with regard to the Arundel Bypass proposal. This means that the views and recommendations of the SDNPA cannot be put aside lightly by those who have to take the final decision concerning the route of the Bypass.

Thus a recent statement by the Director of Countryside Policy and Management at the SDNPA is very relevant, viz:

“All public bodies, including Highways England, must have regard to the purposes of National Parks as they go about their work. National planning guidance states that ‘major development’ (which would include building or widening trunk roads) in a National Park is unacceptable unless there is an overriding national interest and no alternatives are possible. All the routes proposed would go through parts of the National Park and we will be assessing their relative impacts upon it. The SDNPA has a clear position statement on the approach it will adopt to all proposals for upgrading sections of the A27 and this has guided all our work on this issue”.

The local Ancient Woodland, which now includes Tortington Common as well as Binsted Wood and Stewards Copse, and which is located within the SDNP, is protected by national planning policy and, as such, any destruction can be expected to be resisted by Defra, Natural England, and especially by the SDNPA. It is therefore likely that the strongest arguments against the proposed Arundel Bypass will be deployed in respect of Option 3, with its take of 26 ha of Ancient Woodland, as opposed to Option 5A with its take of just 6 ha.

So, whether we like it or not, the opinions and recommendations of the SDNPA are very important, and these are likely to be reinforced by the draft Policies in the emerging SDNP Local Plan (September 2017), viz:


Strategic Policy SD42: Development proposals for new infrastructure will only be permitted where it represents the least environmentally harmful option reasonably available
Strategic Policy SD9.2.c: Development proposals that will result in any adverse effect on the integrity of any Local Site which cannot be either avoided or adequately mitigated will be refused, unless exceptional circumstances outweighing the adverse effects are clearly demonstrated
Strategic Policy SD9.2.d: Development proposals which result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, will be refused unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss
Additionally, the SDNPA has published an A27 Position Statement which governs the Authority’s approach to proposals for widening or building new roads through the National Park, the presumption being that any proposal must be in the national interest and must minimise the adverse impact on the SDNP.

As far as the NNNPS is concerned, there are two policies which impact directly on HE’s A27 Arundel Bypass proposals:
Para 5.32 requires the Secretary of State to not grant consent for any development that would result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland
Paras 5.150-5.152 say that the Secretary of State should refuse development consent in National Parks except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that it is in the public interest
In conclusion, and on the basis that the need for a bypass at Arundel is essential in the national interest, we have assessed which of Options 3 or 5A is most likely to receive the least opposition, especially from the SDNPA.
Having previously been a strong supporter of the Government’s original pink/blue ‘preferred route’, OneArundel is now convinced that if an A27 Bypass is to be provided at Arundel, then Option 5A is the least worst, and therefore the best of the three routes that have been put forward by Highways England.

OneArundel therefore commends Option 5A for your strong support.

Finally, for all those who live in Arundel, please don’t forget that on Monday 25 September at 7.00pm Arundel Town Council is organising a Parish Meeting in St Nicholas Church for residents to have their say and ask questions about the bypass proposals.

It is clear even now that the noisy minority of anti-bypass campaigners will seek to dominate the meeting. So please do what you can to keep that date free and attend the meeting, thereby ensuring that the Town Council is well aware of the majority view in support of the bypass

[Johnathan404]

Something is bothering me about the Crossbush Roundabout that I've never noticed in all the years it has been there.

Seeing as the easternmost 'bridge' isn't actually a bridge but a temporary embankment, it's going to have to be removed before work can get going on the road underneath. For several years this is either going to mean:

a: a significant diversion for A284 southbound traffic
b: A284 southbound traffic is going to be sent to the bottom of the slip road and turned around through a temporary gap in the central reservation
c: the westernmost bridge (also known as the A27 westbound and A284 northbound) is going to have to operate with a single lane, shared with the A284 southbound
d: the entire Arundel Bypass will be built and opened without Crossbush, with that junction turned it in to an extremely busy dumbbell, and only then starting on the road underneath

When this 'temporary' junction was built, why was such a kick-yourself-in-the-nads temporary layout chosen, as opposed to the more simple option b? It would have been inelegant and over-worked, but no worse than the A27 westbound here being reduced to a single lane as it originally was. With hindsight the temporary-embankment solution has served its purpose, but that's not really a good thing, and now we've got to find a way for the junction to function without it.

[Richardf]

Probably Option C. As originally designed and built. The embankment I beleive came sometime later than the rest of the junction , probably after the last bypass plans were canned and the junction became 'permanent'.

C will allow better traffic management during construction. Other options will cause conflicts/problems.

[Berk]

Something is bothering me about the Crossbush Roundabout that I've never noticed in all the years it has been there.

Seeing as the easternmost 'bridge' isn't actually a bridge but a temporary embankment, it's going to have to be removed before work can get going on the road underneath. For several years this is either going to mean:

a: a significant diversion for A284 southbound traffic
b: A284 southbound traffic is going to be sent to the bottom of the slip road and turned around through a temporary gap in the central reservation
c: the westernmost bridge (also known as the A27 westbound and A284 northbound) is going to have to operate with a single lane, shared with the A284 southbound
d: the entire Arundel Bypass will be built and opened without Crossbush, with that junction turned it in to an extremely busy dumbbell, and only then starting on the road underneath

When this 'temporary' junction was built, why was such a kick-yourself-in-the-nads temporary layout chosen, as opposed to the more simple option b? It would have been inelegant and over-worked, but no worse than the A27 westbound here being reduced to a single lane as it originally was. With hindsight the temporary-embankment solution has served its purpose, but that's not really a good thing, and now we've got to find a way for the junction to function without it.

You're making it sound like the end of the world. But surely the roundabout would need redesigning anyway - to fit the junction as it’s meant to be designed and used??

Like you point out, the embankment serves its current purpose -a ‘quick and dirty’ turnaround. It seems obvious that the RCU at the time decided not to build a second bridge in that project, as it would surely follow on with the next phase.

In any case, the current roundabout probably isn’t quite wide enough -a new bridge would fix that. I don’t think it would be that difficult to design and construct a new bridge - whilst the old alignment is still there, and then ‘cut over’ - which has been done countless times before.

[Fluid Dynamics]

Probably Option C. As originally designed and built. The embankment I beleive came sometime later than the rest of the junction , probably after the last bypass plans were canned and the junction became 'permanent'.

I can remember the bypass being built and can't remember a time when the junction wasn't as is, the only major change I recall was to the A27 westbound carriageway/sliproad. Happy to be proved wrong though. Another concern is that West Sussex CC have proposals to improve the A284 into Littlehampton, I'm not sure of the current timescales, but there's a risk of at least some overlap in delivery.

The reality is that Arundel will get worse for a couple of years whilst the new alignment is built. At least the A284 junction overbridge is already in place. I would have thought removing the temporary arm of the gyratory and creating the A27 mainline was a couple of month's work at most. Similar works took place for recently completed A21 when the temporary diversion created for the construction of the Fairthorne GSJ was removed to allow for the construction of the northbound carriageway.

I would have thought option D was easiest. With many road projects traffic is diverted onto the new alighnment via single carriageway running for instance, so I am sure that the removal of the temporary road can be programmed in.

[Phil]

Something is bothering me about the Crossbush Roundabout that I've never noticed in all the years it has been there.

Seeing as the easternmost 'bridge' isn't actually a bridge but a temporary embankment, it's going to have to be removed before work can get going on the road underneath. For several years this is either going to mean:

a: a significant diversion for A284 southbound traffic
b: A284 southbound traffic is going to be sent to the bottom of the slip road and turned around through a temporary gap in the central reservation
c: the westernmost bridge (also known as the A27 westbound and A284 northbound) is going to have to operate with a single lane, shared with the A284 southbound
d: the entire Arundel Bypass will be built and opened without Crossbush, with that junction turned it in to an extremely busy dumbbell, and only then starting on the road underneath

When this 'temporary' junction was built, why was such a kick-yourself-in-the-nads temporary layout chosen, as opposed to the more simple option b? It would have been inelegant and over-worked, but no worse than the A27 westbound here being reduced to a single lane as it originally was. With hindsight the temporary-embankment solution has served its purpose, but that's not really a good thing, and now we've got to find a way for the junction to function without it.

You're making it sound like the end of the world. But surely the roundabout would need redesigning anyway - to fit the junction as it’s meant to be designed and used??

Like you point out, the embankment serves its current purpose -a ‘quick and dirty’ turnaround. It seems obvious that the RCU at the time decided not to build a second bridge in that project, as it would surely follow on with the next phase.

In any case, the current roundabout probably isn’t quite wide enough -a new bridge would fix that. I don’t think it would be that difficult to design and construct a new bridge - whilst the old alignment is still there, and then ‘cut over’ - which has been done countless times before.

I believe that the junction was planned as a Dumbell arrangement - NOT a full roundabout, with the addition of the earth embankment a necessary 'temporary' addition when it became clear the Dumbell arrangement simply wouldn't cope when the further continuation of the A27 got canned.

As such, unless traffic volumes heading into Arundell itself or Littlehampton have changed radically then there will be no need for a second bridge when the A27 bypasses Arundell properly.

[wrinkly]

When this roundabout was first built it was temporarily the western terminus of (that bit of) the M56. The east side of the roundbout was carried on a bridge; the western side just sat on the ground, slightly to the east of where the western bridge was later built.

[crowntown100]

There was a similar set up here when the A30 was built to the west, but the M5 hadn't reached J31.

[Richardf]

One option might be to replace the embankment with a temporary bridge while the bypass is built? That said if traffic levels now require a full roundabout/gyratory, might a second bridge be nessesary in the finished GSJ? Might not have been nesesary original but perhaps traffic levels might have increased enough to need it?

Or would just building roundabouts at either end of the bridge be enough to replace the embankment?

[Chris5156]

Something is bothering me about the Crossbush Roundabout that I've never noticed in all the years it has been there.

Seeing as the easternmost 'bridge' isn't actually a bridge but a temporary embankment, it's going to have to be removed before work can get going on the road underneath. For several years this is either going to mean...

Several years? The full construction period of the entire bypass is likely to be two years, but it doesn't take two years to remove an embankment, construct a road bed for a length of say twenty metres across the site the embankment used to occupy and then pave it. It certainly won't take two years.

I'd expect it will be left in situ until the new bypass is virtually complete and then there will be a period of weeks or - just possibly - a couple of months in which a temporary layout is needed to allow the embankment to be removed and the new road put in its place. I don't see how this is catastrophic.

[Bryn666]

The tie in works will be one of the first things to be done I suspect, so the embankment would go early on. I think this is what Johnny is concerned about, you'd have the 'final' junction that would be inadequate whilst the rest of the bypass was built.

The real thing is I can see the road being canned purely because that seems to be the story of the A27's life.

[RichardA35]

Something is bothering me about the Crossbush Roundabout that I've never noticed in all the years it has been there.

Seeing as the easternmost 'bridge' isn't actually a bridge but a temporary embankment, it's going to have to be removed before work can get going on the road underneath. For several years this is either going to mean...

Several years? The full construction period of the entire bypass is likely to be two years, but it doesn't take two years to remove an embankment, construct a road bed for a length of say twenty metres across the site the embankment used to occupy and then pave it. It certainly won't take two years.

I'd expect it will be left in situ until the new bypass is virtually complete and then there will be a period of weeks or - just possibly - a couple of months in which a temporary layout is needed to allow the embankment to be removed and the new road put in its place. I don't see how this is catastrophic.

Those of us with long memories can recall that the base but probably not surface course is present underneath the embankment and it goes not quite as far as the bridge. Wouldn't like to guarantee its life when exposed without a bit of testing though...

[Berk]

The tie in works will be one of the first things to be done I suspect, so the embankment would go early on. I think this is what Johnny is concerned about, you'd have the 'final' junction that would be inadequate whilst the rest of the bypass was built.

The real thing is I can see the road being canned purely because that seems to be the story of the A27's life.

I think the only real concern at Arundel (unlike the other two schemes) is this designation of ‘ancient’ woodland (who makes this sort of thing up?? What if it was just 200 years old, or less??).

Although we should remember this is taking place in Sussex, I wouldn’t put it past a wealthy group of residents to (try to) fund a judicial review at some stage.

[Berk]

Something is bothering me about the Crossbush Roundabout that I've never noticed in all the years it has been there.

Seeing as the easternmost 'bridge' isn't actually a bridge but a temporary embankment, it's going to have to be removed before work can get going on the road underneath. For several years this is either going to mean...

Several years? The full construction period of the entire bypass is likely to be two years, but it doesn't take two years to remove an embankment, construct a road bed for a length of say twenty metres across the site the embankment used to occupy and then pave it. It certainly won't take two years.

I'd expect it will be left in situ until the new bypass is virtually complete and then there will be a period of weeks or - just possibly - a couple of months in which a temporary layout is needed to allow the embankment to be removed and the new road put in its place. I don't see how this is catastrophic.

Those of us with long memories can recall that the base but probably not surface course is present underneath the embankment and it goes not quite as far as the bridge. Wouldn't like to guarantee its life when exposed without a bit of testing though...

Surely it’ll be dug up and resurfaced - on the grounds that too much time has passed since it was laid, and its integrity can’t be guaranteed.

[RichardA35]

Several years? The full construction period of the entire bypass is likely to be two years, but it doesn't take two years to remove an embankment, construct a road bed for a length of say twenty metres across the site the embankment used to occupy and then pave it. It certainly won't take two years.

I'd expect it will be left in situ until the new bypass is virtually complete and then there will be a period of weeks or - just possibly - a couple of months in which a temporary layout is needed to allow the embankment to be removed and the new road put in its place. I don't see how this is catastrophic.

Those of us with long memories can recall that the base but probably not surface course is present underneath the embankment and it goes not quite as far as the bridge. Wouldn't like to guarantee its life when exposed without a bit of testing though...

Surely it’ll be dug up and resurfaced - on the grounds that too much time has passed since it was laid, and its integrity can’t be guaranteed.

A visual survey, a CCTV of the drainage, a few cores with DCP, a bit of FWD and you would soon know whether reuse was a dead duck or not - worth spending a little on the testing rather than just scrapping the asset.

[J6onM27]

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... preads.pdf