A27 Arundel Bypass

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Euan wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 23:37 There are no other viable options for the route of the bypass other than to pass just south of the woodland and Arundel itself, so not really that much can be done to satisfy any objectors to the route in its current form. The only alternative of course would be to have no bypass and achieve nothing.
I don’t feel it’s as forlorn as that. With the National Park withdrawing their objection, it will probably be much quicker and easier to move forwards.

Without wishing to rehash/recap, I’m not really sure why they feel additional consultation is necessary - very little is changed, apart from one new option.
GeekyJames
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 21:42
Location: Southampton / Eastbourne

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by GeekyJames »

Latest from Highways England...

Dear Sir/Madam

Following our update in October 2018, I am writing to let you know that the further non-statutory consultation for the A27 Arundel Bypass scheme is now planned for late summer 2019.

We need to ensure we have consistent analysis across all the options put forward in the consultation, so that stakeholders can submit informed responses based on the latest information. We are investigating a number of options which haven’t previously been consulted on and are working hard to finalise analysis on these as quickly as possible.

Why we’re conducting further consultation

After our public consultation in autumn 2017 we announced a preferred route, known as Option 5a, last May. Since then, as part of our work to develop the scheme for submission of a planning application, we have discovered new information which merits putting the plans to the public again. At this consultation you will be able to review new information including a modified design for option 5a, alongside updated traffic modelling results and new information about alternative, enhanced options.

Your views on this new information are crucial to ensuring we find the best long-term solution for Arundel. This further consultation will give you another opportunity to both comment on the issues and options presented at the previous consultation and on the new information available.

Following the further consultation, we will consider the responses alongside all other relevant information to determine the next steps for the project.

Current timeline:

Late summer 2019 Further options consultation
2020 New preferred route announcement
2020 Statutory consultation on the preferred route
2021 Submit application for a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008
2022 Start construction
mikehindsonevans
Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:44
Location: Cheshire, but working week time in Cambridge

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by mikehindsonevans »

This sounds rather like imagining if the French had adopted this consultation process with the Maginot Line. The Belgian phase of the consultation never finished, so in May 1940.....

At least this gives a glimmer of hope that the glacial progress of filling the A27 Arundel Gap is now down to (possibly) five years.

Progress!
Last edited by mikehindsonevans on Mon Mar 18, 2019 00:27, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Hindson-Evans.
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist.
They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

From earlier posts, I seem to recall this is a rather pointless consultation, because the basic situation and traffic issues haven’t changed materially.

It’s basically about presenting more options that will be discarded. In the interests of “fairness”, perhaps.
GeekyJames
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 21:42
Location: Southampton / Eastbourne

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by GeekyJames »

Latest update from Highways England, including a couple of videos of those working on the project...

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/ ... provement/
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Micro The Maniac »

we have discovered new and important information that could affect our decision around the most appropriate option for the improvement scheme
'scuse me for being cynical, but this sounds like a convenient "we have to scrap the project"
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 21:52
we have discovered new and important information that could affect our decision around the most appropriate option for the improvement scheme
'scuse me for being cynical, but this sounds like a convenient "we have to scrap the project"
Isn’t this just an explanation for the reason the consultation has been re-run following a procedural challenge from key consultees?
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Second round of non-statutory consultation begins on the 30th August for any of those interested.
Due start date of construction has been pushed back to 2022/2023, however I'd expect it to be the latter due to the amount of tree huggers in the area.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Just had a quick read of the new Arundel Bypass Consultation documents (I stayed up tonight just for this, I feel a little special TBH xd)
There are Six routes proposed this time round. Orginally there was 5 (plus variations) with 3 shortlisted.
Like previous routes, they have named them using colours, and their numbers seem to be similar to the previous numbering, but just with a version on the end.
CYAN (1V5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37VvymRzpdU
Similar to old option of a short new S2 bypass over the floodplain, new bridge, then upgrading the A27 west of the roundabout to D2. However closing of local road network junctions from the A27, using local road network to access properties instead.
BEIGE (1V9)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXbFGQVUNg
Similar to CYAN, however junction with Ford Road would become a "through about", which im guessing the same as what we call a Hamburger.
CRIMSON (3V1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2f-srPngTc
A short D2 bypass of Arundel, new road across floodplain, new bridge and then cuts through large amount of woodland to join the A27 near where the current D2/S2 sections meet.
MAGENTA (4/5AV1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJMtKD0HeRM
A brand new route that hasn't been consulted on before, its kinda a half way between the old options 4 & 5, however avoiding Binstead Woods. Would change the local road layout south of the A27 at the current junction of B2132, closing a few roads and seems to pass very near to homes and through the golf course.
AMBER (4/5AV2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq1btYu3D1I
Looks dead same as old option 5a, which was the prefered option last time by HE.
GREY (5BV1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf3zUJN-wo0
Just avoids the national park and acient woodlands by taking a longer route and rejoins the A27 nearer Fontwell.

They have also included statistics on the time saved, homes effects, WOODLAND impacted and distance within the national park, just to rub it in the faces of the tree huggers and anti-road parties that their prefered route of a new road is actually better than just upgrading the current one.

Junction with Ford Road, they have excluded a junction with Ford Road in all their offline plans, however it is possilble to add a junction there and open to the consideration of having the additional junction

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ur_say.pdf
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

Thanks for that. My take:

CYAN (1V5)
Largely online. Fails to grade separate B2312 Yapton Lane/Shelbridge Rd. Access to Arundel from the west is circuitous. High woodland impact.

BEIGE (1V9)
Largely online. Fails to grade separate B2132 Yapton Lane/Shelbridge Rd and Ford Road Roundabout. High woodland impact.

CRIMSON (3V1)
Partially online. Fails to grade separate B2132 Yapton Lane/Shelbridge Rd. Very high woodland impact.

MAGENTA (4/5AV1)
Offline. Freeflowing route. Low woodland impact.

AMBER (4/5AV2)
Offline. Freeflowing route. Westbound access to B2132 Shelbridge Rd removed. Moderate woodland impact.

GREY (5BV1)
Offline. Freeflowing route. Very low woodland impact.

Fortunately there is a lot of agreement between traffic and environmental considerations, so Grey is my top pick, followed by Magenta, then Amber.

Option drawings here: http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roa ... D+to+G.pdf
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Fair enough,
They have made the routes though Arundel very attractive, however at the expense of those living their. My favorite would be Amber, I like the way they are dealing with the western tie in and the viaduct over the woodland (clearly they will clear the trees below it, but the effect on wildlife would be minimal.
Second preference would be Magenta, and finally Cyan.
User avatar
Bertiebus
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 15:12
Location: The land of haggis bothering, NE division

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Bertiebus »

jervi wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 00:29 just to rub it in the faces of the tree huggers and anti-road parties that their prefered route of a new road is actually better than just upgrading the current one.
Why is anyone who sees a bigger picture than merely saying "Let's draw a straight line on a map from point A to point B, build a road along it and build it now" dismissed with the cheap accusation of being a 'tree hugger'?

It's funny, exactly the same thing happens on railway interest forums when people don't immediately go "Yep, HS2. Build it in a straight line, build it now and to hell with the consequences of anything in its path." Same again on aviation forums when airport expansion is discussed. Don't go "Fantastic, just get it built and never mind what's in the way"? Well, you're automatically a 'tree hugger'.

It's one of those bargain basement jibes that says far more about the person using it than who it's supposed to be aimed at. I do wish people would grow out of it, because it does the broader-visioned road/rail/air enthusiasts a considerable disservice-by-association :roll:
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Why I do like trees, but it's all a balance between nature, safety, people's homes, peoples health, reducing congestion, cost and probably some other factors. I'd rather not the road take the direct route, it would heavily negatively affect the historic town and those living there, plus there isn't much room for expansion. If the route clears the town, clears a large woodland but then either has to cut through a small piece of woodland OR has to pass close to a few villages and homes while being longer, and more expensive, what would you choose?

Tree Huggers get in the way at the expense of other's health, other's safety, journey time, reduced pollution and local heritage, just to protect a few hundred trees.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Occasionally there are well-founded objections (e.g. from homeowners whose house is on the line of the road). But the majority lack a valid argument. Declaring every individual coppice and thicket as ‘ancient woodland’, or even those which are fairly recent adds little to environmental protection.

Such objections do, though, contribute to exorbitant increases in costs, additional public and judicial hearings and result in years, and even decades of dithering and delay. Meanwhile, the road remains unbuilt, and the local environment remains jammed with cars and choked with fumes.

The road around Crossbush and Arundel is pretty nasty and choked at the moment, and the additional roundabouts make it a pretty unhealthy place. Added to which even more dithering and delay as many drivers prefer to pull out on a completely empty road, rather than giving way sensibly (pulling away smartly into a gap, rather than making a slow start).

So no, I feel the onus should be on the objectors. They cost all of us, after all.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Apart from the small matter of us needing trees to live... presumably any cut down trees will be replaced in the ratio of 2+:1?
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s being recommended due to global warming.

I don’t know why campaigners always take a zero sum view (“this habitat must be protected, in this place, at all costs”).

I think nature is a lot more resilient than that. Things can be moved around a little bit. What happens after a weather event, like a massive storm for instance??
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9861
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

Berk wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 14:32 Declaring every individual coppice and thicket as ‘ancient woodland’, or even those which are fairly recent adds little to environmental protection.
Can you give a single specific example of a coppice or a thicket being declared "ancient woodland" where it has been demonstrated that it is not in fact ancient woodland? "Ancient woodland" has a specific meaning, see here : https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/about- ... -woodland/
Berk wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 16:08 I don’t know why campaigners always take a zero sum view (“this habitat must be protected, in this place, at all costs”).
They don't. This is yet another straw man argument, just as claiming that pro-roads campaigners always take a zero sum view ("this road must be built, in this place, at all costs") would be a straw man argument.
Berk wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 16:08 I think nature is a lot more resilient than that. Things can be moved around a little bit.
How do you move let's say 5 hectares of ancient woodland?
Owen
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Not so much move (I imagine directly transplanting wouldn’t work, and if it did would be very expensive), but replant, trying to keep the species the same as far as possible.

I still maintain that natural events can wreak as much damage as human beings. The Great Storm of 1987 was extremely destructive - millions of trees were lost in the south east alone.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9861
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

Berk wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 22:35 Not so much move (I imagine directly transplanting wouldn’t work, and if it did would be very expensive), but replant, trying to keep the species the same as far as possible.

I still maintain that natural events can wreak as much damage as human beings. The Great Storm of 1987 was extremely destructive - millions of trees were lost in the south east alone.
No doubt you can do a lot to mitigate the effect of development on the environment. But at the end of the day, put a road through an ancient woodland and you don't have an ancient woodland (at least not an intact one). You can't replant an ancient woodland, for one thing a new woodland wouldn't be ancient by definition but more importantly a species rich, bio-diverse habitat can't just be created from scratch, it takes decades to centuries of ecological succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession to get to a diverse, stable, balanced ecosystem. In other words, destroy an ancient woodland, and you've lost its ecological wealth for generations to come even if you replant another area.

Yes, natural events can be devastating, although in the UK we don't generally get the really devastating totally natural events that other parts of the world suffer (eg. volcanic eruptions, earthquakes) and events such as the Great Storm of 1987 are rare and in any case increasingly involve human agency. But by far the biggest influence in changing, and from an ecological point of view degrading, the UK natural environment for several thousand years now (since the advent of agriculture and the cutting down of most of the UK's woods and forests) has been human intervention.
Owen
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

The recent A21 Tonbridge to Pembury improvement scheme that went through the High Weald AONB and close to the RSBP Tudeley nature reserve included habitat translocation. Although trees had to be cut down, soil, shrubs and wildlife were relocated to a nearby replacement woodland near to the road improvement site and new trees planted. It is still early days to know how successful these works have been.

The scheme also included deconstructing an ancient farm building for reconstruction at the Weald and Downland museum at Singleton.
Post Reply