Can you help us object by 13 October? Here is How:

Can you help STOP Silverlake make a precent to industrialize the countryside and our villages in Hampshire and beyond?!

Send in an objection by emailing Officer Jane Rarok and team at planning@hants.gov.uk the link to t the application is https://planning.hants.gov.uk/Planning/Display/HCC/2024/0464 - scroll down and click on 'Agree'

Here are some more things you can say: 

Policy Conflicts and Split Site Use

The scheme is not supported by the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (HMWP) or the Winchester Local Plan. Policy MTRA4 (Winchester LPP1) supports small-scale, locally appropriate rural enterprises — not large-scale industrial expansions of urban character in sensitive rural landscapes.

HMWP Policy 29 (Locations and safeguarding of waste management) is frequently cited by the applicant, but this is not the sole test. The application attempts to satisfy Policies 2 (Biodiversity) but has to use credits to do this, which further show unsuitability of this location, 5 (Protection of the countryside), 8 (Traffic/transport), 10 (Protecting public amenity), none of which are convincingly of addressed.

The applicant offers no genuine “exceptional circumstances” that would justify siting such a large-scale industrial use within open countryside. Their reasoning is largely based on commercial convenience, owning a country field and not on planning merit.  There is no special need for ELV re-cycling on this particular rural site.  Charles Trent in Poole operate on two sites already, Silverlake can follow their example as this site is not adequate due to policy constraints. Silverlake already use a temporary car park and have another site near Botley petrol station called the ‘Silverlake Yard’ and are operating on multiple sites already. Why hasn’t SAR considered a split site development on Rookery Farm or Gravel Hill Farm.  Why not have the EV battery storage plant at another site such as Rookery Farm?

The proposal conflicts with all the policies below, not just policy 29. There is no rigorous justification for exceptional circumstances to justify siting a large industrial operation in an open rural field. The applicant’s rationale is largely commercial convenience, not planning merit.

·        Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (HMWP): Policies 2 (Biodiversity), 5 (Protection of the Countryside), 8 (Traffic/Transport), 10 (Public Amenity), 29 (Waste Management Locations).

·        Winchester Local Plan Part 1: CP16 (Biodiversity), CP20 (Heritage and Landscape), MTRA4 (Rural Areas).

Rookery Farm and Gravel Hill Farm
Subject: Consideration of Rookery Farm in Silverlake Expansion Plans
I am writing in relation to the proposed expansion of the Silverlake Automotive Recycling (SAR) facility and the assessment provided regarding alternative sites, specifically Rookery Farm. While the report outlines several reasons why Rookery Farm is not considered a viable alternative, even though Rookery Farm is already a safeguarded HMWP site and it is just 3 miles away with good transportation links.  I am concerned that the assessment does not fully consider the potential benefits of using Rookery Farm in conjunction with the existing SAR site, rather than as a standalone relocation.

The assessment notes that:
Historic Land Use and Topography – Rookery Farm is a former inert landfill with significant changes in levels and limited hard-surfacing (para 3.0.43–3.0.44). While this limits the total operational area, it does not preclude the potential for partial use of the site in combination and conjunction with the existing SAR facility, which could maximize operational capacity without needing to relocate entirely.  

Operational Area – The report highlights that the operational area at Rookery Farm is only 4.83Ha, smaller than the 9Ha proposed for Silverlake’s expansion (para 3.0.45). However, a combined approach using both sites could provide additional flexibility and capacity, particularly if the existing Silverlake land is optimised.

Financial Considerations – It is stated that SAR would face significant financial investment to purchase and redevelop Rookery Farm, with no certainty of planning approval (para 3.0.46). While relocation carries costs, partial use of Rookery Farm alongside the existing site could reduce risk and spread investment over time, providing a phased approach rather than a full relocation. Also the financial aspect is not a planning consideration.

SAR are already trying for planning permission on the present site, which is also not guaranteed in the countryside field surrounded by rural activities (vineyard, farm, golf course, scout event centre) at Row Ash.  This is also costing a lot, they can obviously afford this planning permission? So this argument can be discounted. 

There is a question as to whether the discounting of sites in this report is also being overplayed, for instance one of the reasons given is that planning permission would need to be obtained for Rookery Farm.  As we have seen with many of the Silverlake applicant reports so far, they seem prejudiced or misleading and this market search may be prejudiced towards gaining consent for current planning permission in the countryside at the detriment of finding the right site for this expansion. 

Strategic Benefit – The report concludes that Rookery Farm offers no greater benefit than expanding the existing site (para 3.0.48). However, considering the purported strategic need to manage End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) processing efficiently in the county, combining the sites could enhance operational resilience, improve traffic distribution, and create potential synergies with existing Silverlake operations.

Given the above points, I respectfully request that the Council reconsider whether Rookery Farm could provide a complementary site, supporting the current Silverlake operation rather than being dismissed outright as a standalone alternative. Such consideration would ensure a robust assessment of options in line with sustainable development principles and long-term waste management needs for Hampshire. 
Silverlake discount this site as a whole but are not thinking in a responsible planning process way – working with the current site as is in addition to the Rookery Farm site would work – can HWM team ask them to do an assessment concerning this aspect and why they had not considered this before?  Other smaller sites on the market site such as could also be considered if this more responsible planning and expansion approach were to be adopted by SAR.

Silverlake’s application (HCC/2024/0464) asserts that expansion on their existing site is necessary, but there is evidence in a lack of true rigours search for alternative sites assessment. In planning policy terms, the use of previously developed or existing employment land should always be considered before permitting development in the open countryside. A clear example is Gravel Hill Farm, Shirrell Heath, a few miles from SAR existing site, which already benefits from B1c, B2 and B8 permissions and could potentially accommodate vehicle-related operations. 

This site was available FOR SALE online according to the agent shown below from April 2024 until 11th September when it went under offer.  The fact that such sites are not even mentioned in Silverlake’s documentation suggests their “search” for alternatives has been neither robust nor transparent. This undermines their justification for taking productive farmland out of use, contrary to policies that seek to protect rural landscapes and prioritise existing developed land. SAR seems to be playing lip service to searching as it is more convenient for them to develop the countryside field beside them. 
 
A local resident found this site online and it shows that the site search of SAR report is not rigorous enough. There are most likely other sites such as the Teardrop site https://www.vailwilliams.com/property/the-teardrop-portsmouth/ Why havent SAR looked at all sites?

Could he Council also check the “Development Portfolio” held by Hampshire Council. I believe It shows allocated large industrial/mixed-use sites, but the public data doesn’t always give exact sizes or immediate availability.

Please object this expansion proposal - this is not the right location to expand into.

Sincerely,

THANK YOU ALL YOU AMAZING ONES!