Traffic troubles

I understand that Arun councillor and cabinet member for planning Ricky Bower, who made the call for the bypass in the story, is now being criticised in some quarters for his remarks. However, your article merely reports his reflections over those very concerns now expressed by your readers, both through your pages and at public discussions.

Up to this year, the A259 was classified, in part, as the Littlehampton bypass and, except for a section of the Worthing Road, fulfilled that design criteria, with the potential to be made a dual carriageway in the future. The valid question Mr Bower now raises is how, as a result of those planning decisions and the added weight of traffic, can space for the through movement be maintained?

I am sure the thrust of his declaration is levelled at the county council as the highway authority, which has so far refused to address positively this emerging situation. However, some of his district colleagues, including some who are town members, cannot escape responsibility for those recent development control committee decisions. Otherwise, the other Lyminster bypass and its associated bridge over the railway, although unrelated to the east/west through flow, has also now become a county issue. So far that authority has failed to acknowledge any funding commitment towards its promotion. Nevertheless, because of the impact of their schemes, developers are being required to contribute to its construction. Seemingly, in these circumstances, this can occur only after development traffic intrudes into those surrounding parishes.

This is the point which, I believe, is being driven home by your recent contributors.

Derek Hulmes

Kingfisher Drive

Littlehampton