A masterplan to build nearly 2,000 new homes at the former Stanton Ironworks site near Ilkeston looks set to be thrown out.
The massive plan by French firm Saint-Gobain would see the 470-acre site effectively become a new 1,950-home village south of the town.
However, officers at Erewash Borough Council believe the long-awaited planning application should be rejected for 11 reasons.
The borough council has received almost 200 objection letters from residents concerned that the proposals would affect their lives in a number of ways.
Fears include the amount of traffic it would create, an increase in noise and damage to wildlife.
In its objection letter, Stanton-by-Dale Parish Council stated: “We support the development of the site as something needs to happen to it but we do not want it to happen in a manner that is detrimental to the parish and parishioners.
“If the application were to be approved in its present form the parish council is in no doubt that the resulting traffic flow would completely destroy the heritage and character of our village. Even worse it would almost certainly destroy the spirit of the local community.”
Planning documents state: “The proposals are considered unacceptable and the application is recommended for refusal.”
The development – which was first put forward in 2008 when it comprised of 7,000 new homes – would be built on brownfield land and would make up a third of the housing stock that Erewash needs to fulfil in the next 25 years.
It would also comprise cafe bars and restaurants, 20,000sqm of office space, a care home, a health centre and a primary school.
The borough council is due to make a decision on the application at a meeting next Wednesday.
Saint Gobain was unavailable to comment as the Ilkeston Advertiser went to press.
Officers’ 11 reasons for refusal
1. Failure to provide appropriate affordable housing
2. Failure to provide an amount and mix of employment development
3. Failure to deliver green infrastructure including an appropriate wildlife corridor
4. Inappropriate and excessive retail uses
5. Failure to show the restoration of landscape
6. Loss of bat roosts
7. Inadequate compensation of wildlife habitat
8. Inadequate noise protection
9. Failure to address how increases in traffic would be dealt with
10. Failure to show how residential amenity would be met
11. Harm to heritage assets