Plans for up to 100 homes have been submitted for land off Larch Drive in Sandiacre – a site previously identified for development under Erewash Borough Council’s Core Strategy Review, the borough’s updated Local Plan, which has since been withdrawn following criticism from a government Planning Inspector.
The outline application, submitted on behalf of Peveril Homes, relates to a 4.9-hectare site on the northern edge of the town. The land, currently used as grazing meadow, sits directly alongside the M1 motorway and borders Stony Clouds Local Nature Reserve.
Access to the proposed development would be taken through Larch Drive – an existing residential cul-de-sac which currently serves around 15 homes – raising concerns locally about the scale of change and the volume of traffic this would introduce.
Residents say they were only made aware of the application in recent days. Letters notifying households are dated 19 March but were not received until 24 March, leaving a 21-day window for comments based on the earlier date.
One resident told Ilkeston News the timing had left people feeling under pressure.
“It feels like this is being pushed through the back door. People are only just becoming aware of it and already the clock is ticking.”
Although only access is being considered at this stage, the application sets out a development of up to 100 homes, with around 35% classed as affordable housing and an estimated population of more than 200 residents. The detailed layout, design and appearance would follow at a later stage if permission is granted.
What is clear from the supporting documents, however, is the nature of the site itself – and the constraints that come with it.
A detailed noise impact assessment confirms that the dominant feature affecting the land is the M1 motorway, which runs immediately alongside the western boundary. Monitoring carried out over several days found noise levels regularly reaching into the high 60s and low 70s decibels during the day, with night-time levels remaining in the mid-to-high 60s.
In planning terms, that places the site well above the levels typically considered desirable for residential environments. The report states that the noise climate across the majority of the site is driven by motorway traffic, with no other significant sources identified.
To make the development viable, a series of mitigation measures are proposed. These include a three-metre-high acoustic barrier along the edge of the motorway, as well as enhanced glazing and insulation within the homes themselves.
Even with those measures in place, the report highlights practical limitations for future residents. In particular, it notes that night-time noise levels are likely to exceed thresholds where windows can be used as the primary means of ventilation during warmer conditions. In effect, this means bedrooms may need to rely on alternative ventilation systems, with windows kept closed to avoid disturbance.
Outdoor space is also affected. The assessment indicates that many of the proposed garden areas would experience noise levels above recommended guidance, in some cases by several decibels. While the report concludes these levels can still be considered acceptable in planning terms, it acknowledges they are above ideal standards and would need to be addressed through design and layout.
Beyond noise, the site’s position on the edge of the green belt and alongside a designated nature reserve adds further context. The land includes hedgerows, scrub and open grassland, with parts of the wider area recognised for ecological value. Planning documents state that some vegetation would be removed to facilitate access and development, with mitigation planting proposed as part of the scheme.
The development is also being promoted as a modern, energy-efficient scheme, with proposals including solar panels, heat pumps and electric vehicle charging.
The application raises wider questions about how development is now coming forward across the borough.
The land forms part of a larger area previously earmarked for housing in the Core Strategy Review -a plan that was withdrawn after concerns were raised by a Planning Inspector over its evidence base and deliverability.
Despite that, the site is now being brought forward independently through the planning process.
In planning terms, this type of application is often seen where a council does not have an up-to-date adopted development plan in place. Without that framework, decisions are more heavily guided by national policy, and individual sites can be brought forward by developers outside of a wider, coordinated strategy.
An application is also expected this week for a further 100-home development in nearby West Hallam, suggesting a number of sites linked to the withdrawn Core Strategy Review may now begin coming forward independently.
The application will now be considered by Erewash Borough Council as part of the standard planning process.
Residents can submit comments via the council’s planning portal within the consultation period. You can access the details here – ref: PA/2026/0149
One Comment
Thank you so much for highlighting this you are doing a sterling job of looking out for local people really appreciate it. My own view is that this council has gone totally rogue and is doing its best to destroy Sandiacre and surrounding areas before it is disbanded. They are also frittering away the considerable amount of money in their coffers that belong to Sandiacre people on projects that locals do not want and to justify their own jobs.
I also think there is considerable pique from the planning department on having their previous plans to destroy our green belt overturned, in my view it is both personal and spiteful the way they are acting and reacting.
All of the objections raised by residents and local folk, that were in excess of 500 in a very short space of time, (presumably languishing in the planning dept cupboard like previous) are still as valid. Every single on of these should have been advised of this new development.
I would also point out that of the few letters received advising of this latest travesty, just like previous notifications, the date on the letter was 5 days prior to receipt thereby rendering the objection date deadline once again to be shortened. Just like they did before shameful.