Dozens of flats have been approved on an “eyesore” derelict site which has been vacant for more than 15 years – but none will be “affordable”.
At an Erewash Borough Council meeting this month (Wednesday, 10 June), councillors approved plans for a four-storey block of 53 retirement apartments on vacant land next to Lidl and the Erewash Canal in Station Road, Sandiacre.
The plans, from McCarthy Stone, had previously been withdrawn by the developer due to flood risk issues after the plot was moved from flood zone two to zone three, with hundreds of surrounding homes impacted by Storm Babet in 2023.
After a number of tweaks, including raising the floor level, the developer said the benefits of new housing for older people outweighed the flood risk.
Councillors approved the scheme due to the benefit of reusing the plot, which has been vacant for 18 years and is now wildly overgrown.
Jacqueline Marshall, a Sandiacre resident, claimed traffic surveys carried out for the site had been “underestimated”, saying her own 90-minute assessment from 7.45 am until 9.15 am recorded 1,018 vehicles passing the vacant plot – the equivalent of one every five seconds.
She claimed the traffic is often so congested on Station Road past the site that it stretches back from the neighbouring bridge over the canal to The Midland Hotel in Stapleford.
Ms Marshall said: “Adding more vehicles is going to cause more problems. I have no objection to the plans in principle, but it is in the wrong place.”
Claire Temple, agent for the applicant, said the plot was a “long-vacant brownfield site” within the “urban area”, and it has “detracted” from the town for many years.
She said the scheme would lead to “modest traffic generation”.
Ms Temple said the 53-apartment scheme, with no affordable housing component, was the “best deliverable outcome for this site despite viability issues, with clear public benefits of reusing the vacant plot”.
Councillor Kevin Miller (Con), supporting approval, said: “We have looked at this site many, many times, and everything before has been very, very good, but the site is very difficult to develop. The design is good, presidential, I might say, and it is not an HMO (house in multiple occupation).”
Meanwhile, Councillor Ann Mills (Green) said the facility only had one lift for the 42 occupants on the upper floors and two disabled parking spaces, with a lack of flats that can be adapted to meet wider needs in an older person’s living facility.
Urging refusal, she said: “This is the generic building this company designs. When people realise this doesn’t meet their needs, they will go back on the council’s waiting list; it is not meeting their needs.”
Councillor Andrew Prince (Con) said: “I am certainly in favour of getting this brownfield site developed. McCarthy Stone is one of the biggest developers of retirement homes, and they want the privilege of building in our town, neighbouring the conservation area, but what do we get but a building that is overbearing?
“The parish council wants changes to be more architecturally in keeping with the mill, and our officers say there aren’t the level of details and quality expected.
“McCarthy Stone are not limited by funding, based on their value, and they have decided not to make changes.
“This is a fairly bog-standard design; you see these all over the country, but we do also see more detailed designs.
“Including affordable housing would make the development unviable, they say. It is a shame to see another developer who doesn’t want to pay the obligations, but we say it doesn’t matter because it isn’t much money. Well, if it isn’t much money, then they can pay it.”
A viability assessment commissioned by the applicant claims the scheme cannot afford to pay any financial contributions for local improvements, including affordable housing, saying this would lead to a profit of less than the required 20 per cent – £2.3 million.
It details that it expects to sell the one-bed apartments for £200,000 and the two-bed apartments for £265,000.
Councillors approved the scheme, with none voting in favour, one against, and one abstaining.