Campaigners fighting to stop a massive warehouse being built between Fleet and Farnborough have been hit with a traffic bombshell.

SPLAT — Stop Pyestock bLot Act Today, a non-political pressure group fighting the controversial mega-depot plan — has discovered that the permitted weekly total of lorry movements for the site has risen from 5,600 to 16,800 a week.

SPLAT spokeswoman Shan Healey said the new draft traffic capping agreement, currently being negotiated between joint mega-shed developers Prupim and Astral and Hampshire County Council, will shock residents and commuters.

“It is complete lunacy,” she added. “When unravelled, their complex calculations reveal there is no serious constraint on the number of lorries entering and leaving the site.”

The shock figures have been revealed in detailed proofs of evidence that will be presented at the forthcoming inquiry into the Pyestock plan.

Mrs Healey said SPLAT members were shocked to discover the weekly total of lorry movements had risen from 5,600 a week — an average of 800 a day — to 16,800 a week.

“The latest agreement considers a daily cap unnecessary,” she added.

“So, 800 lorry movements per day has been abandoned in favour of an average of 2,400 per day.”

SPLAT is also concerned that the joint developers have defined a lorry as a large vehicle with three or more axles.

However, Mrs Healey pointed out: “Many two-axle trucks are very large and can weigh up to 22 tons."

“But according to the developer these trucks are classified as People Carrying Units (PCUs) and are equivalent to a car."

“The agreement permits the developer 400 PCUs on average over ten peak hour periods a week, or a maximum of 460 in any peak hour.”

SPLAT was also shocked to discover that the penalty for exceeding any of the capping limits is a “derisory” £200.

Mrs Healey added: “In the peak hours the Pyestock roundabout could have an extra 115 lorries and an extra 230 PCUs, many of which could be trucks, all before they pay a fine of £200 per vehicle.

“Outside the peak hours, apart from the 115 lorries per hour, there are no further restrictions.

“There could be unlimited numbers of 22-ton two-axle trucks, white vans, smaller lorries and cars and further large lorries delivering locally.

“Because of their deliberately complex avera-ging in their proposed agree-ment there is little or no constraint.

“Now, suddenly, existing users are not to be included in their caps.

“All of these so-called restrictions define the point at which the user starts to pay a paltry penalty of £200 per vehicle.”

Mrs Healey said that at Andover, where developer Goodman wants to build a 23-acre mega-shed, the proposed penalty has been set at £2,000 per vehicle.

“We hope Hampshire County Council will show consistency,” she added.

SPLAT is also concerned that within the routing agreement, designed to ensure that all lorries enter and leave the site via junction 4a of the M3, the developer and the county council have excluded all vehicles delivering locally, without defining ‘locally’.

Mrs Healey warned: “Any major retailer seeking a regional distribution centre would have ‘local’ lorries excluded from the routing agreement.

“If Hampshire County Council signs the proposed capping and routing agreements there will be no controls whatsoever.”

Mrs Healey added: “All along SPLAT knew the developers’ traffic figures were fictitious.

“After two and a half years and just three weeks before the inquiry, we have discovered the true horror.

“The public deserves to know what Hampshire County Council and the developers are agreeing. In effect there will be no cap, simply an easy economic decision.”

Cllr Mel Kendal, Hampshire County Council’s executive member for the environment, said the council was still in discussions with the developers about the content of a Section 106 agreement proposed to secure mitigation and controls for the redevelopment of the site in advance of the public inquiry.

He added: “While significant progress has been made with the developer on a number of these complex matters, the agreement is not yet agreed with the county council.

“A number of areas require further discussion and consideration including, more specifically, the detail and mechanics of both the vehicle cap monitoring and the payment structure.

“Hampshire County Council is committed to ensuring that any Section 106 agreement in this respect is robust and strong, and adequately ensures the safety and efficiency of the local highway network, while providing for real alternatives to the private car to be offered through the Travel Plan and minibus service.”

Steven Moss, project direc-tor for Prupim, said: “Assessments by transport experts have concluded that this development will generate no more traffic than could be generated by bringing the existing useable buildings back into use.

“There is a major need for distribution facilities in the south-east and there are very few brownfield sites identified for these uses.

“This industrial site is ideally located for distribution facilities and would offer substantial employment opportunities.

“The appeal process allows all the issues — including traffic matters — to be considered in detail by an independent planning inspector at a public inquiry and for all parties, including opponents, to have their say.”

Mr Moss added that the warehouse proposal would clean up the contaminated site and bring it back into more productive use.