People living in a village have lost the battle after a second planning application to double the number of lorries entering the Ecogen Recycling has been granted.

This planning application was refused in January based on “potential disturbance” due to the increased number of lorries on nearby residents but a revised plan has now been given the green light.

Located in Kings Worthy, two miles from Winchester, Ecogen Recycling Centre can double lorry movements from 40 to 80 and increase the maximum annual tonnes of waste from 30,000 tonnes per year to 60,000, despite more than 140 current objections and 1,006 signatures from a campaign against the development.

MOST READ: More than 40 objections to major development plans for former army base

Hampshire Chronicle:

At a regulatory committee meeting on Wednesday (November 15), councillors and people living in the village were disappointed as the highway officer, who was supposed to address all the highway concerns related to the application, was absent due to illness.

Seven residents and local councillors spoke out about the severe impact of the centre’s bid, including fatal crashes, damage caused to roads and air pollution.

In an emotive speech, resident Rosamund McCarthy blamed the county council for the future loss of meadows, wildlife, and countryside. She then ironically congratulated them on the legacy the council is leaving to the new generation.

Mrs McCarthy said: “How disappointed I am for our future. What are we leaving for our children? […] Congratulations, what a legacy!

“The faith that people have in politics these days is low. I can see why young people should be bothered to vote.

“I moved to Kings Worthy two years ago; I left London, where I lived near the North Circular; trust me, I know what it is like to have pollution and noise. So I moved up to Winchester, where my parents are, and remembered what a beautiful place it is, what a heaven it is. Or it was.

“Early this year, we thought we were done with this; we thought we had our village back, but here we are again. This is not just about business. The reality is a loss of the countryside.”

Kings Worthy Parish Council councillor Signe Biddle, chairman of planning and highways, said she was “sad to be here again, but not surprised”.

Cllr Biddle said: “The pavements are very narrow. Schoolchildren and all members of the community regularly use the lane. The proposal modifications have not demonstrated the resolution of the safety issues.

“We don’t feel our concerns have been addressed. Hundreds of personal objections and parish councils seem to be given little or no consideration. Clearly, the real-life experience of 40 HGVs per day through Lovedon Lane is appalling, unsuitable and double it would be horrendous for our community and will destroy the character of our village”.

For its part, councillor Steve Cramoysan from Winchester City Council said that highway safety, damage to the motorway, cost to the county council finances, and loyalty, since the highways officer was not present, were more than enough reasons to reject the proposal.

Cllr Cramoysan said: “Highways were one of the most significant concerns. I believe that highways are a department of people, not just one person, so there should be more than one person allocated today here to address the concerns.”

He added: “The road is a public road. It is an amenity for all users, not just for Ecogen. Taxpayers are entitled to expect that the highways are fit for purpose, safe and under the standards. Since Ecogen started operations, the roads of Lovedon Lane have suffered.

“The underlying structure is not designed to stand 40 HGVs. These HGVs create cracks; with the weight, they pressure and inject water into those small cracks that later become potholes.”

On behalf of Ecogen Recycling Centre, the representative said local safety concerns hadn’t been disregarded, but more lorries “would not cause severe highway safety impacts”.

They said the firm is working closely with the council, highways and environmental health and the extra journeys wouldn’t impact the public.

“The exams conclude that the proposed movements equate to a two per cent increase of the existing total movements in each direction; this is not significant,” he said.

“As such, the highway authority continues to raise no objections.”

In support of residents and against the proposal, various councillors endorsed that the impact on residents’ health due to the increased pollution and noise would be dramatic for them.

Councillor Lesley Meenaghan said: “Exposures of diesel caused serious health conditions such as asthma, a lung disease, and is even worse for children. I’m sure residents have moved to where they are to be free as much as possible from pollution.”

She said 29 per cent of vehicles use rural roads but 56 per cent of pedestrian casualties happen there. She also claimed the highest proportion of deaths involve lorries, and they also cause 136 times more damage to roads than other vehicles.

Councillor Kim Taylor said: “I understand the need for these facilities. We heard a lot about highway issues, but this is not only about highways and wider roads; listening to residents explaining about noise and air quality along Lovedon Lane before, after and during the process, there has been a cumulative impact on the interactions between this operation and the community.

“The fact that we haven’t heard any air quality and noise measurement concerns me because it can’t be proven that there is no impact. I think the development does create an unacceptable impact in these areas, and I certainly don’t want to see this granted.”

The application was approved with the support of nine councillors, one abstention and six against.