A campaigner fighting against a controversial bypass on the A27 has written to Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove asking them to put a stop to the scheme.

Proposals to add a bypass to the A27 at Arundel have been met with fierce local resistance over fears of significant damage to nearby villages and countryside.

National Highways was expected to submit its plans for the scheme - which is estimated to cost in the region of £320 million- to the planning inspectorate by the end of this year.

But it has now announced further consultation will take place on the divisive proposal due to design changes.

National Highways intends to submit a development consent order – the equivalent of a planning application for major infrastructure projects – by spring 2023.

A potential construction start date has been pushed back to summer 2024 to account for the proposed design changes.

Exact details of the changes are due to be released soon with National Highways claiming they will "further mitigate traffic levels through Walberton".

A supplementary consultation is due to take place between November 16 and December 16 with timings and locations to be confirmed.

Dr Emma Tristram, secretary of Arundel Bypass Neighbourhood Committee, has written to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations calling on them to halt the plans.

Dr Tristram lives in Binsted, one of the communities she says is “threatened” with being “split in two”.

In her letter to Mr Gove, Dr Tristram urged him to “save” communities and landscapes from the bypass, which she says would “ruin” three villages.

“The planned bypass would ruin three villages, severing two and hugely increasing traffic in a third, and sever a large wildlife haven (internationally important for bats),” she wrote.

“The latest estimate of its benefit-cost ratio is 1.37.

“I live in one of the communities threatened with being split in two, Binsted, near Arundel. Its Grade II listed 12th century church would be 100m from the new road.”

While in her letter to newly appointed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, she asked him to cancel the scheme, which she described as “damaging and poor value for money”.

“You have committed to leaving our environment in a better state for the next generation,” she said.

“Spending up to £1.2bn (National Highways’ possible maximum figure) on this proposed road scheme is the wrong thing to do for the environment and also in the current financial crisis.”

A spokesman from National Highways said there are "no easy answers" to improving the A27 and that the route presented the ‘best long-term solution’.

“There are no easy answers to the challenges of improving the A27 around Arundel, but the general consensus is that improvements are needed,” he said.

“The results of our extensive assessment work have clearly identified the grey route as the best long-term solution and was chosen as the preferred route based on several considerations.

“These include how well the proposed design would meet the scheme objectives, potential impacts on local communities and the environment, the extent to which the proposals would comply with planning policy, feedback received during the public consultation process, and the cost/value for money of the scheme.

“As well as removing high traffic flows from Arundel town centre, the grey route will cater for forecast traffic volumes while also offering the greatest time savings compared to today’s travel times. The route is outside the South Downs National Park, which is significant in planning policy terms, and outside of woodland designated as ancient by Natural England.”