Silverlake Automotive Recycling: Residents' delight as Hampshire expansion plan is refused

Members of Hampshire County Council’s regulatory committee voted against the Silverlake Automotive Recycling application at a meeting on Wednesday, following strong opposition from the local community and a recommendation for refusal from planning officers.

Speaking on behalf of the Community Against Silverlake Expansion (CASE) campaign group, Matt Stevens said the proposal went far beyond a minor extension.

He told councillors that almost trebling the area of the site, from 4.3 hectares to 12.8 hectares, “is not a small or ancillary extension.”

He warned the development would have a “devastating” and “intrusive” impact, adding it would cause a “forever irreparable harm for this countryside location”.

Residents, near the site, which is on the A334 between Shedfield and Curdridge, described the emotional strain of the long-running planning process.

Jenny Barker, who has lived at the Grade II-listed Row Ash since 1975, said the past 28 months had been “very difficult and stressful”.

She told the committee she and her husband had spent decades maintaining the 18th-century property and saw themselves as “custodians for future generations”.

She said: “To propose the industrialisation of the field to create one of Europe’s largest single size vehicle recycling factories would totally dominate the landscape and will ruin the rural local setting. This field is not the site for Silverlake’s application.”

Concerns were also raised about the wider impact on the character of the area.

Julia Stevens said the field currently acts as a “vital green buffer” between the existing site and the surrounding countryside.

“Any approval will open the door to endless industrialisation,” she warned, adding it would change the rural nature of the community.

Local businesses joined residents in opposing the plans.

Sam Davis, whose vineyard has operated in the area since 1970, said the development would be “catastrophic to the countryside”.

She warned: “Once gone, it would never be replaced.”

Despite the opposition, Silverlake argued the expansion was necessary to meet growing demand.

Director Paul Archer told councillors Hampshire was facing an “end-of-life vehicles crisis,” with increasing numbers of cars needing processing.

He said: “The number of cars at the end of their lives is growing exponentially. There is no other credible capacity within the county to properly process them. The committee report recognised there is a need and it’s clear there are no other valid alternative sites.”

Mr Archer added the expansion would provide “vital infrastructure,” increase the reuse of parts and help reduce carbon emissions linked to manufacturing.

He added: “Today you will have the opportunity to make a ground-breaking decision. Refusing this expansion will expose Hampshire to not be able to manage the volume of end-of-life vehicles.”

While acknowledging the company’s role in the local economy and its reputation as a well-run facility, Hampshire officers said that on balance the application shouldn’t be granted.

Councillors largely agreed, although several stressed they supported the principle of expansion in a more suitable location.

Cllr Malcolm Wallace described the proposal as “beyond the historic scale” of the site.

He said: “What is in front of you today is not an incremental change, it is a step change.”

Cllr Pal Hayre added: “The more we use our countryside, the less we’ve got—and when it’s gone, it’s gone.”

Cllr Stephen Parker pointed out that he supported business growth, but “it has to be in an appropriate site, and this is not”, while Cllr Rod Cooper urged the company to continue searching for an alternative location.

There were also concerns about the planning process itself. Cllr Keith House said he feared the decision could be overturned, referencing previous controversial applications.

He said: “I’m really nervous that we get into that position here.”

The committee voted unanimously to refuse the application.

Responding to the decision, Silverlake managing director Allen Prebble said the company was “extremely disappointed”.

Mr Prebble said: “While we respect their decision, our mission will continue to exercise best practice, be a good neighbour and educate the local community.”

He added the company would now “carefully consider the next steps” as it looks to maintain its role as a leading automotive recycling business.

After the meeting, CASE representatives welcomed the decision: “We are very pleased with this decision, which emphasised the importance of protecting the countryside and the dangerous precedent go ahead for Silverlake would set for destroying rural areas through mass industrialisation.”