A historic ironworks that produced materials for St Pancras Station, D-Day pontoons and World War Two bomb casings could make way for 80 homes and new business space.
The disused Butterley Ironworks, in Derbyshire, could be replaced with housing, offices, wine bars, restaurants, a care home, shops, a swimming pool, soft play area, dance studio and gym under plans which look set for approval.
Local entrepreneur Tim Godkin and London property company Aquarius Estates want to develop the site, just north of Ripley.
Amber Valley Borough Council planning officers have recommended that the scheme should be approved at a meeting today (Monday, September 28).
It comes despite significant opposition from organisations and community groups who fear the heritage of the site could be damaged or lost for good.
The developers say they have no intention of altering the historic blast wall, furnace or immediate area around it – or to impact on the canal tunnel which runs underneath it.
They said they plan to fund maintenance works to the heritage assets.
In total, 11 historic buildings on the site, which have remained derelict or more than a decade, would be brought back into use, they said.
Most Read
The Butterley Ironworks Trust has raised concerns about the upkeep of the former blast furnace walls which it says have fallen into a “terrible” condition due to “neglect” and would be costly to repair.
It supports reusing buildings on the site and hopes to move in to the ground floor of the landmark former pattern shop building at the north of the site to use it as a base for visitors to learn more about the history of the ironworks, including a virtual reality experience.
The Canal and Rivers Trust has urged the applicants to further investigate the potential impact of the development on the Butterley tunnel – now disused – which was built in 1794 for the Cromford Canal route.
Meanwhile, the Derbyshire Archaeological Society says: “The integrity of the site’s listed and scheduled buildings and structures have not been given sufficient weight in the application or the heritage statement.
“It is feared that the proposed development of dwellings will seriously diminish the overall heritage offering.
“We do not believe that any application should be approved that does recognise the importance of the blast furnace wall and the structures therein.
“Any plan must ensure the maintenance of the (blast) wall and its visibility to the whole site is maintained.”\u0009
Don’t miss
The council’s heritage officer says any potential harm or changes to the listed buildings and assets would require further planning applications.
They also said: “The site holds the potential for a successful conservation-led regeneration scheme, maximising the potential of its assets allied with an innovative design solution that creates an exemplary place to live and work, continuing the legacy of a place where challenges were overcome with bold confidence.”
An independent site viability firm, CP Viability, says the developers would not be able to contribute any affordable housing or funding by Section 106 (a legal agreement between the firms and the council) for improvements to schools, roads or other services.
The firm says the “abnormal” costs linked to redeveloping the derelict site make the scheme “already technically unviable”.
Amber Valley Borough Council has a catch-all policy that every housing development should have a minimum of 30 per cent affordable housing.
Council officers have also asked the developers for £36,472 to develop Greenwich Park Recreation Ground in Ripley.
Ripley Town Council has also objected to the scheme. It says the site owners have failed to keep the former blast wall in good condition and half a million pounds is now needed for repairs.
It fears the development would have a negative impact on the historic but “dilapidated” site.
The authority worries that the 50,000 cubic metres of “in-fill material” required to level the site would see a troublesome number of HGVs entering and leaving the former ironworks.
Borough councillor Tony Holmes, who represents the area, has also called for objection due to the site’s “historic importance”, claiming the scheme would be “detrimental”.
In total, 27 objection letters were submitted by residents.
It is proposed that “building one”, a large rectangular building which faces on to the junction of Butterley Hill and Coach Road, would become a shop on the ground floor and care home with an office on the upper floor.
Its existing car park area would have 30 spaces.
“Building two,” a two-storey structure the size of a small house, to the west of building one, would become an office unit.
The next part of the proposed development, “building four”, sits further to the west on Butterley Hill.
It comprises a small hexagonal building and a longer rectangular structure – both single-storey – which would become a micro-pub or restaurant or a wine bar.
Following this are the larger, red brick former factory buildings, the first in the row of three (buildings five through seven) connecting structures, would be demolished.
Meanwhile, the second would be a storage and distribution depot on the ground floor with offices above, and the third would be a dance studio on the ground floor and offices on the floors above.
The largest building, “building eight”, covering almost 17,000 sq ft, could house a swimming pool, soft-play area, microbrewery or micropub.
Finally, “building nine” could house a gym or “wellness centre”.
The developers said in a statement submitted with the application: ““This application proposes the creation of a high quality sustainable development that provides social, economic and environmental benefits to Ripley, its surroundings and the wider borough.
“The key issue in this regard is that the site, including its heritage assets, have been vacant for many years and are in a derelict state, primarily as a result of years of lack of investment, maintenance, and management largely due to the insolvency of previous owners.
“The site also presents a serious health and safety risk in its current form and gives rise to anti-social behaviour with vandalism and arson frequent occurrences despite security measures put in place by the current owners.”
Council officers, recommending approval, wrote: “There are significant public benefits associated with the proposed development.
“The Listed Buildings and structures are on the Historic England ‘at risk’ register and the public benefit of restoring them and utilising them in their most viable uses would secure the future of the significant place.
“There are no adverse impacts of this proposed development which would mean that the balance would not be in favour of granting the development.”
Known locally as the Butterley Works, the site originally functioned as a mining operation and smelting site, before being restructured to form an engineering, brick-making and aggregates business.
It was founded in 1790, as Benjamin Outram and Company, followed by the Butterley Company and ran for 219 years.
At its peak, in the 1950s, the firm employed 10,000 people.