OBJECT - PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY FROM PLANNING ABUSE! DEADLINE 28TH AUG

Protect Our community from Planning Abuse! DEADLINE 28TH AUGUST!  WE NEED MORE OBJECTIONS!

Silverlake have put up buildings without permission – and only afterwards are retrospective planning applications being submitted. This undermines trust in our local planning process and leaves our community feeling powerless.

If we don’t raise our voices, this pattern will continue: build first, ask later. Our area deserves respect, fairness, and proper planning – not rules bent in favour of those who choose to flout them.

The deadline to object is this Friday, 28th. Please take a moment to make your views heard before it’s too late.

👉 https://planning.hants.gov.uk/Planning/Display/HCC/2025/0485

Or email planning@hants.gov.uk

Every objection counts. Together we can show the council that our community will not accept disregard for due process.

Here is a sample objection to help you: 

Write Your Name and Address 

Subject:  HCC/2025/0485 / WR200
Proposal Retrospective application for the erection of 2 No site buildings at Silverlake Automotive Recycling Ltd
Location Row Ash Botley Road Southampton SO32 2HL

Objection as follows:
There is conflict with adopted planning policies: The application site lies within designated countryside where development is tightly controlled. Under the Winchester District Local Plan (Policy MTRA 4) and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (Policies 25 and 27), new buildings in the countryside must demonstrate essential need, avoid harm to local amenity, and provide robust justification.

• The applicant seeks retrospective approval for two large industrial-style buildings which expand operations without any clear policy-compliant justification.

• The supporting planning statement cites taxation changes and commercial pressures as drivers for development. However, financial or taxation matters are not relevant planning considerations and cannot form the basis for justifying development within the countryside.

• The application therefore fails to meet the policy tests of necessity, proportionality, and compatibility with its rural location.Noise, lighting, and amenity impacts
The proposal introduces further operational floorspace in close proximity to neighbouring properties. These buildings will lead to:
• Increased noise from vehicle reception, dismantling, and parts removal activities. It is well established that there are significant concerns about the loud industrial noises which are emitted from the site, additional capacity can only increase such noise and disturbances to the neighbouring properties.
• Additional lighting impact associated with extended working areas, which will further erode rural character and disturb residential amenity.
• No evidence has been provided within the submission to demonstrate how these impacts will be mitigated throughout the temporary period of use.

Failure to assess cumulative and growth impacts The Planning Statement notes that “Silverlake continues to grow” yet no assessment is provided of how 
this growth affects the wider rural community, landscape, traffic levels, or cumulative impact of intensification. Without such assessment, the application fails the requirements of NPPF para. 185 (which requires planning to protect the local environment from adverse noise and pollution impacts) 
and Winchester Local Plan Part 2 DM17 & DM18 (which require consideration of environmental protection, amenity, and pollution risks). If the Applicant’s business is growing as stated, that must lead to increased traffic, increased staff, increased operational movements and therefore an increase in the impact which must be properly assessed.

Unsustainable development form
Development in rural locations must demonstrate that it respects the character of the area and delivers sustainable outcomes. The large industrial sheds, clad in steel and rising to 7.4m - 7.7m in height are urban in scale and appearance, and have not been justified as temporary “essential” countryside development.

Their cumulative visual and environmental impact is contrary to the spatial strategy of the Local Plan, which seeks to focus industrial growth in appropriate designated locations rather than piecemeal expansion in the countryside. These are not designed to appear as “barns” but industrial 
buildings and therefore are not appropriate.

Planning drawings
As a matter of process, HCC should have rejected this application as the redline site plan conflicts with the ownership drawing provided in respect of HCC/2024/0464 which is referred to in this application. The redline drawing of ownership for this application does not disclose the full extent of the 
land controlled by the Applicant. Reference Butterworth v SSE & North Norfolk DC and the potential for a planning decision to be quashed.

Conclusion
The application represents inappropriate development in the countryside that is not supported by planning policy. It relies on irrelevant taxation arguments, fails to assess or mitigate its environmental and amenity impacts, and would materially harm the rural character of the area.