www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Here's an opportunity to make a real difference to the future of butterflies, moths and other wildlife, on a large scale. Time to stand up for nature!

Highways England is currently consulting on three options (Options 1, 3 and 5A – see map) for the A27 Arundel Bypass. See https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... el-bypass/
Options 3 and 5A will have a huge, negative impact on populations of butterflies, moths and other wildlife; they will unnecessarily destroy large areas of ancient woodland and other habitat types which are vital to wildlife; they will ruin our treasured landscape; they will devastate the rural tranquillity of Binsted.

Amongst the butterflies and moths which will be affected are the regionally threatened Pearl-bordered Fritillary, the declining White Admiral, the magnificent Purple Emperor and the nationally scarce Drab Looper.

These options will cost at least £250 million and save a journey time of just 4 – 8 minutes, during peak hours, in 2041 (Highways England figures).

Option 1 is less damaging, but in its present form damages the environment to an unnecessary degree. Better alternatives to Option 1 exist, including that presented here http://www.arundela27forum.org.uk

The full response by Butterfly Conservation Sussex Branch can be found here:
http://www.sussex-butterflies.org.uk/co ... ation.docx

A link to a leaflet produced by Alexander Henderson can be found here:
http://www.sussex-butterflies.org.uk/co ... -Downs.pdf

PLEASE take time to register your views on these proposals. Butterfly Conservation Sussex Branch believes that it is right to:

1) Object outright to Options 3 and 5A.

2) Object to Option 1 in its current form, asking that less environmentally damaging versions be considered.

3) Express any concerns you may have with the consultation process itself, including the inadequate and inaccurate assessment of the environmental damage caused by each option, and the poor and confused manner in which the positive and negative impacts of each option are presented for comparison.

PLEASE respond to the consultation by either:

Email to: A27ArundelBypass@highwaysengland.co.uk

or by writing to:
Highways England (A27 Arundel Bypass Consultation)
National Traffic Operations Centre
3 Ridge Way
Quinton Business Park
Birmingham
B32 1AF

or using the online Highways England questionnaire at:
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ion/intro/

by Monday 16 October 2017

Done! Good luck...

Tony M.

Also done.
Roger

Thanks for posting this, Neil. I'll take a proper look at it tomorrow and will respond appropriately.

Thanks, Tony, Roger and David. There's no better way of showing how much we care for butterflies and other wildlife. I believe that this is a battle which can be won, so every 'vote' will count.
BWs, Neil

Sometimes, road schemes actually create new habitat in the form of cuttings or embankments. As a precedent, just look at how disused Victorian railways are often treasured these days for their wildlife. The difficulty with roads is access: eg the M40 cutting through the Chilterns, the M3 Winchester by-pass or the A27 cutting south of Mill Hill. However, the newly created road margins – and they often look very promising but can’t of course be investigated – might well act as “feeder sites”.

So I throw into the discussion: which of the options for the Arundel by-pass (which many would agree is needed) would be best in creating new habitat?

Jack

Hi Jack

You need to read this bit http://www.sussex-butterflies.org.uk/co ... ation.docx

There is no environmental upside to Options 3 and 5A - it's just ecological vandalism. Road cuttings can provide useful habitat and dispersal corridors in degraded landscapes (and can do so if creating steep and unstable chalk slopes), but creating them to replace ancient woodland and to cut across nationally important chalk stream habitats, when there's no need to, is unforgivable. In these cases the road (and its embankments) would be causing fragmentation and isolation of high quality habitat patches, not connecting them.

The environmentally less damaging, cheaper (half cost) and equally effective alternatives are clearly set out (Option 1 of Highways England and the preferable modification suggested by Arundel A27 Forum). Option 1 saves 3-7 minutes at peak travel time in 2041; Option 3 saves 4-8 minutes (Highways England's own figures), so it's a clear choice; concrete or wildlife.

In answer to your question "which of the options for the Arundel by-pass (which many would agree is needed - [me too]) would be best in creating new habitat?", the answer is none of them, as the embankments or cuttings would, in all cases, be replacing something far superior. However, importing material for their construction does pose a significant risk of introducing alien invasives, such as Himalayan Balsam.

BWs, Neil

I have emailed my objections too.

I trust Neil and am happy to tick the boxes he suggests. Whatever I tick, though, it will represent a compromise. Every generation strikes some kind of balance between the alleged needs of the growing human population and the right to existence of non-human populations. The result is that every generation encroaches a little more on the land occupied by other species. Surely, a fair balance is one that is struck once and forever. Otherwise the only mathematically possible outcome is the concreting over of the whole country. For all the amazing, dedicated work of Neil and others like him, South would not recognise the Britain of today. We forget what things were like a hundred years ago. My only honest answer to this question - which I write here just for the sake of putting it in the public domain, not in expectation of any influence on events - is this: any human inconvenience of not having a bypass pales into insignificance beside the inconvenience to other species of having one. We have taken enough. One generation must say, ‘no more, even if we suffer because of it’. I would love to be part of that generation (which is why I never learnt to drive and have never aspired to own a house or land).

Guy

I completed the Highways Agency questionnaire, leaving several blanks since my knowledge of the situation only extends to what I've read from Neil.

However, numbers are always important, and if sufficient numbers register discontent then those opinions cannot be dismissed easily.

Done, Neil.

Further to Guy's comments: (WARNING: Lengthy preamble about Brits & cars!) I have a bee in my bonnet about the UK car registration plate - it's fairly uniquely LARGE, and openly advertises, for all who care to notice, the year of manufacture of the vehicle. I've long believed it to be an important driver behind this country's new car obssession (just look at the number of new cars sold in this country each year, and compare with other countries, per capita). So, I contacted an old friend, who now works for the Green Party, and enquired whether they had anything in their manifesto about this (changing the form of the UK reg.). He confirmed that it had been discussed, and that they were aware of considerable opposition from within the whole, massive loose conglomerate of those who benefit from new car sales. He couldn't remember whether it was current policy (there's a lot in the manifesto about transport, of course). But, to put it succinctly, he said, the GP's aim was to dissuade people from making unnecessary journeys by car - and that, it seems to me, hits the nail on the head. More bypasses simply == more (unnecessary/casual) car journeys, because people will not think twice about going 'out for a drive' (in their '67'-reg. car) - if they believe the road ahead is bigger. (Have you ever seen a car advert, where the shiny new beast is sat in a traffic jam?)
Sorry for the long preamble, but I'm leading-up to the bombshell Do you (UKBers, BCers, etc.) think twice before packing the camera in the boot, and driving 200 miles to see a Lulworth Skipper / Black Hairstreak / etc.? If you don't, then you're inevitably compromised, when it comes to the debate about more/bigger roads. Especially when those proposals are not on your door-step (but may be on a route you will be taking, occasionally).

I only travel distances, to see 'flies, if can get there by train / bus / bike / walk. If I can't, then I will leave those rare, beautiful jewels to the people who are fortunate enough to live nearby, and the 'the professionals'. I've voiced the opinion before on these forums (with no visible support, so I'm obviously not tuned into the zeitgeist!) - how can anyone who claims to be any sort of modern Aurelian, justify 'bagging all 59 species in a year'? How many car/plane miles does that involve?! Presumably, a certain amount of finger-crossing is involved, hoping that some new bypass, somewhere en route, has opened. And why not top it off, with a 500-mile round trip to catch the LTB sighting that was reported in S.E. Kent?

Apologies - that turned into a rant. I'll get me coat.

Jon

A Bugboy style bump, just to say this is your last chance to comment and speak up for butterflies re the Highways England A27 proposal. It is not too late to email.

Padfield wrote: Whatever I tick, though, it will represent a compromise.

Guy

I agree with Guy that, whenever compromise and the environment are mentioned together, it is always the environment that is compromised. So, in some ways, unless we adopt wider, connected landscape-scale management of the natural world, saving small areas of habitat and butterflies may not be enough. Isolated, small populations are more vulnerable to extreme events or lack of genetic diversity and can easily be lost. These are the issues we now face, saving “hot-spots” whilst the wider countryside environment is shrinking and becomes more hostile in most cases.
There is hope. There are fantastic stories amongst farmers who still see themselves as custodians of the land and are willing to leave field margins and manage areas specifically for cover, or seeds, or nectar to create wildlife havens on their farms. Cash-strapped local authorities are looking for ways to save money on management of public places, so there is a less-is-more argument to manage for greater biodiversity in our public places; some authorities manage road-side verges as wildflower reserves, with planned rotation of cutting and removal of material. Butterfly Conservation has shown in the South Downs that we can make a difference and take-on larger projects than simply managing reserves.
But given the many decades of compromise, we will all have to work hard, however we can, to lobby for a visionary, joined-up and sustainable environmental policy and take the opportunity to implement it wherever possible. There are enough wildlife agencies and dedicated, knowledgeable members to make this happen. Unless, of course, we reach another compromise….

Nice one Mr Barkham!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw
BWs, Neil

Neil Hulme wrote:Nice one Mr Barkham!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw
BWs, Neil

I completely agree. I came across Patrick's article via an unexpected route (sitting on a train reading over someone's shoulder), so I hope it makes an impact. Patrick is a great wordsmith and advocate of our common cause!

Cheers,

- Pete

A very good riposte by Mr Barkham. Are we REALLY so insistent on saving a few minutes from our commute to cut swathes through landscape such as this?

Devil’s Advocate

Let us say that a minimum of 300 vehicles per hour pass through Arundel (a huge underestimate I am sure). Over an eight hour day, that is 2,400. Five days per [working week] totals 12,000 vehicles.

Assume a delay of 12 minutes - 0.2 hours each time (not an underestimate in my, albeit limited, experience), that is a total of 2,400 hours lost per week in the Arundel traffic jams. Again making an assumption that each hour lost represents perhaps £20 (in production, etc). That totals £48,000 per week == £2.4 million per year.

Devil’s Advocate rests his case. (and awaits the cross fire).

I have submitted my views to the consultation. It is not as per Devil's Advocate.

Jack

Hi Jack

Using both your and Highways England's own figures:

Looking at Option 3, this is estimated to save 4-8 minutes travel time, at peak travel time, in 2041. If we take the average, at 6 minutes, this would seem to save £1.2 million in 'productivity' each year. The estimated construction cost of £260 million (and when has a project of this type ever come in on budget?) does not include either a) mitigation costs, or b) policing costs (Sussex police estimate several tens of million pounds), so will inevitably cost in the region of £300 million, or more.

That means it should have paid for itself (in terms of these costs) in 250 years time. However, your delay of 12 minutes is only suffered during restricted periods each day (rush hour; Sunday afternoons; Bank Holidays). I know this, having regularly traveled the route for over 50 years. So, even being generous, we need to divide that average delay time (per day) by four, meaning a 1000 year wait for break-even.

We then need to consider the cost of having trashed a vast swathe of beautiful countryside, much of which is in a national park. Many would consider this 'priceless'.

I would suggest that if we haven't learned to live with our planet in 1000 years time, rather than suck the lifeblood out of it, we are in for one hell of a shock.

Conservationist (for Nature and people) rests his case.

BWs, Neil

Neil Hulme wrote:I would suggest that if we haven't learned to live with our planet in 1000 years time, rather than suck the lifeblood out of it, we are in for one hell of a shock.

I reckon that shock will arrive within the next 100 years at the current rate.

Neil:

That means it should have paid for itself (in terms of these costs) in 250 years time.

Rather better argued than Devil's Advocate.
A saving of £250 million could be put to much more productive use - such as enhanced promotion of Political Correctness

Jack