Issue - meetings

The report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth is attached.

It was RESOLVED that:

a)              the proposed updates and revisions to the East of Gamston/North of Tollerton Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment/Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Opinion be supported;

b)              the re-adoption of the East of Gamston/North of Tollerton Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document on the basis of the updated/revised version be approved; and

c)              delegated authority be granted to the Director for Development and Economic Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, to make any necessary final graphical, presentational and minor textual changes required to the SPD prior to publication.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, Councillor Upton, presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth, which provided an update on the East of Gamston/North of Tollerton Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Councillor Upton read out the statement below that had been prepared by the Council’s solicitors, to make it clear that certain correspondence had been shared with all members of Cabinet ahead of this meeting.  

“The solicitors of Save Nottingham Airfield Group (SNAG) have written to the Council’s external solicitors on 17 June 2026 asserting that the re-adoption of the SPD would be unlawful because of a regulatory breach on the basis that the updates to the SPD are extensive, having a material effect; and that a public consultation was required. The letter also asserts that the proposed updates effectively amount to a new SPD and it is not lawfully possible to prepare a new SPD at this point in time.

A response was sent from the Council’s external solicitors on 19 June 2026, strongly rebutting the claims. A further response was received from SNAG’s solicitors on 22 June. It is noted that SNAG intend to reply to the proposed amendments to the SPD but have not been able to do so before this Cabinet meeting. In this respect, it should be noted that the amendments to the SPD were made as a direct result of SNAG's representations through the Judicial Review (JR) process (notwithstanding the Council’s position that the challenge does not have any merit). In any event, SNAG has been provided with an opportunity to provide further comment on the minor tweaks to the SPD if they choose to do so.

All correspondence has been shared with Cabinet prior to tonight’s meeting.

The advice received from the Council’s external solicitors, as detailed within the letter to the claimant’s solicitor, is that the SPD proposed for readoption is the same fundamental document as the adopted SPD, with some minor amendments. A five-week public consultation was undertaken on the SPD prior to adoption. A Consultation Statement was subsequently published setting out the comments received and how they were taken into account. Due to the proposed amendments being minor with no material change to the SPD, the Council’s solicitors have advised that further public consultation on the SPD was not required.

As to the amendments themselves, it is a matter of judgment as to whether amendments are minor and the Council is entitled to lawfully exercise that judgment in a reasonable manner and has done so in this case. These matters have all been properly considered and are consistent with well understood legal principles (including those in the legal cases: Elphinstone v Westminster City Council [2008] and Nettleship v NHS South Tyne Clinical Commissioning Group [2020].

The SPD is guidance only and does not form part of the development plan. Nevertheless, it can still properly and lawfully seek to “require” things, provided that compliance or non-compliance with the guidance by the applicant is only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6