Judge gives green light for challenge to Arundel bypass decision

A High Court judge has given a campaigner permission to challenge a decision by Highways England to approve a bypass near Arundel in West Sussex.

Law firm Leigh Day, which is acting on behalf of the claimant, Dr Emma Tristram, said the High Court had observed that the claim “raises arguable questions of law in relation to whether something went clearly and radically wrong with the consultation in relation to the traffic figures…”.

Dr Tristram is a local historian and author of ‘Binsted and Beyond’, which charts the history of Binsted and its surrounds, a village set in the landscape through which the proposed bypass would run.

In 2017 Highways England consulted on three bypass options: Option 1, which runs close to the present route; Option 3, which runs through Ancient Woodland at Tortington Common and the South Downs National Park; and Option 5A, which runs through Ancient Woodland at Binsted Woods, the historic Binsted Park and also through the South Downs National Park.

Highways England announced Option 5A as its ‘Preferred Route’ on 11 May 2018.

Leigh Day argues that this decision was unlawful as, following public consultation on the three options, there was a radical change to Highways England’s projected traffic flow on surrounding roads.

It claims that:

• information in the consultation brochure “was positively misleading”;
• expressions of support by the public for Highways England’s preferred route was based on out of date traffic figures;
• the public were not given the opportunity to consider revised traffic figures.

The law firm also argues that the consultation material also contained numerous material errors and omissions “which, cumulatively, gave a positively misleading impression of the impact of the preferred option on Binsted village, Binsted Woods and historic Binsted Park”.

Solicitor Tessa Gregory, from Leigh Day, said: “We are pleased that the Court has granted permission and we will now prepare to argue our client’s case at the High Court over this decision which she believes is unlawful.

“Proper regard must be given to the potential damage to the National Park and Ancient Woodland, and all consultees should be apprised of the true extent of environmental damage that will be caused by the current preferred route.”