Supporters were asked why they didn’t want a dual carriageway bypass:
Desecration of national park. Destruction of woodland and threat to local wildlife.
I don’t want our valley being destroyed!
Ancient woodland should be protected at all costs, especially the Binsted complex, as the largest tract on the south coast.
Ruins the views and acoustics for an entire half of Arundel.
It will increase traffic.
Because it will waste money and ruin the environment with no benefit to drivers or the town.
I care about the countryside.
If sitting in my car for a few extra minutes at Arundel is the price for saving beautiful and irreplaceable countryside around it, then it’s a price I’m willing to pay. Stop and think!
Ruins the views and acoustics for an entire half of Arundel.coast.
Waste of a quarter of a billion pounds.
It will increase pollution and therefore impact on climate change.
The impact on the town and environment in the future.
Fury at destruction of peaceful countryside, bad use of public resources at a time of austerity and growing inequality.
Because it will just clog up again at a different point! It will needlessly destroy an area of beauty.
No justification for a dual carriageway. It makes sense to keep online. There is the least amount of irreversible damage by saying online.
I don’t want a dual carriageway over the wild bit of the river.
Because it won’t actually reduce traffic! Ruining Arundel’s surrounding countryside by building a dual carriageway is a disproportionate response and it won’t work!!
It will just move the bottlenecks further up the road (both ways).