Agenda, decisions and minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

There were no declarations of interest made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2026 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Vice-Chair.

To answer questions submitted by citizens on the Council or its services.

There were no Citizens’ questions.

To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.

Question from Councillor J Walker to Councillor Upton.

“Could the Portfolio Holder explain in more detail the implications from the softening of the language within the proposed Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Tollerton and Gamston, shifting the key requirements into what now reads more as aspirations rather than firm expectations?”

Councillor Upton advised that the SPD was to guide development and support the Local Plan, rather than introduce new policy. He accepted the point made about the change of tone in some of the language used and advised that the approach had been to review the language and strike the right balance between directive and aspirational terms. Councillor Upton stated that he would be giving a statement from the Council’s legal advisers about this SPD later on in the meeting when he presented Item 7 on the agenda.

Councillor Walker asked a supplementary question if the SPD would be put through further scrutiny, at Council, a scrutiny group or out to public consultation?  

Councillor Upton stated that this had already been a very lengthy process, the SPD had already been out to public consultation and no further consultation was planned.

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

It was RESOLVED that:

a)              the preparation of a new Rushcliffe Local Plan, and the publication of the Council’s Notice of Intention to Commence the Rushcliffe Local Plan (at Appendix 1), in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 be approved;

b)              the Rushcliffe Local Plan timetable (at Appendix 2 to the report) be approved and published, and delegated authority be granted to the Director for Development and Economic Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, to agree any subsequent updates to the Local Plan timetable when necessary; and

c)       delegated authority be granted to the Director for Development and Economic Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, to undertake necessary scoping work and evidence gathering to support the new Rushcliffe Local Plan, prior to the Gateway 1 Assessment Stage.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, Councillor Upton, presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth, seeking Cabinet approval to prepare a new Rushcliffe Local Plan and to publish a ‘Notice of Intention to Commence’ a new Local Plan.

Councillor Upton stated that despite the draft Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (GNSP) progressing through its final stages, being examined in July and hopefully adopted in early 2027, it was a statutory requirement for the Council to start preparing a new Local Plan, with the publication of a ‘Notice of Intention’ required by 30 June 2026. A failure to issue this Notice would prevent the Council from entering a 30-month preparation process, which he advised would be a challenging timescale, especially given that officers would be simultaneously working on two Local Plans. Councillor Upton stated that the Government had introduced a more streamlined preparation process, structured around three defined “gateways”, as detailed in Table 1 of the report. Cabinet was advised that Rushcliffe would continue to work with the Greater Nottingham Planning Partnership and that Nottingham City Council and Broxtowe Borough Council would be following the same timetable.

Councillor Upton advised that the adoption of the new Local Plan in April 2029, would be after Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) was due to come into effect in April 2028; however, what form the new authorities would take was unknown, with any implications considered when further details of LGR were announced. National planning policy made it clear that LGR was not a valid reason to delay Local Plan preparation, and the new one would replace the GNSP and the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2. The new Local Plan would include new site allocations and a range of planning policies and would focus on delivering 100% of the Government’s mandatory housing target, which could result in an estimated additional 1,900 houses for Rushcliffe. Councillor Upton concluded by reiterating the legal implications if the ‘Notice of Intention’ was not published by the deadline of 30 June.

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor J Wheeler advised that he was not happy about the prospect of having more housing; however, the Council needed a Local Plan to protect itself against unsuitable development, as detailed in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the report. He expressed concern regarding timings and workloads for officers, with the GNSP going forward for examination, as work would be starting on this Plan, coupled with the uncertainty regarding LGR, and he felt that the Government had handled this process badly and wasted a lot of money. He referred to the Government’s housing targets and advised residents who were unhappy with them to lobby their MPs.

Councillor Brennan reiterated that the Council was required to produce a Local Plan in order to deliver the Government’s new mandatory targets, LGR was not a reason to delay the process and it was likely to result in Rushcliffe having additional housing.    

It was RESOLVED that:

a)              the preparation of a new Rushcliffe Local Plan, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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.

The report of the Director – Neighbourhoods is attached.

It was RESOLVED that Cabinet approve for a Declaration to be made designating the land at The Green Line, West Bridgford; Meadow Park, East Leake and Springdale Wood, East Bridgford (shown hatched on the plans in Appendix 1 to the report) as Local Nature Reserves pursuant to Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Environment and Safety, Councillor Inglis, presented the report of the Director – Neighbourhoods, seeking Cabinet approval for the designation of three new Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in Rushcliffe under the relevant powers provided.

Councillor Inglis advised that eight LNRs had previously been declared as protected areas due to their special natural interest and educational value. The designation would regulate them as nature reserves, act on the Council’s pledges in conserving and enhancing biodiversity and meet the objectives within the Rushcliffe Nature Conservation Strategy 2026-30. Councillor Inglis referred to the three sites, which had been proposed following requests from their individual supporting management groups, as detailed in paragraph 4.4 in the report, with relevant maps attached at Appendix 1 to the report. He advised that Natural England had been consulted on the proposals and its comments in support of the designation were detailed in paragraph 4.5. Councillor Inglis confirmed that management plans for the site would be overseen by officers, with no direct financial implications to the Council and all prior and post legal requirements would be met, as detailed in paragraph 7.2. He concluded by thanking the Environmental Sustainability Officer and the Ecology and Diversity Assistant for their hard work and dedication.

Councillor J Wheeler was pleased to second the recommendation and hoped going forward that more LNRs would be designated.

Councillor Brennan stated that it was pleasing to support a proposal that would be protecting Rushcliffe’s green spaces.

It was RESOLVED that Cabinet approve for a Declaration to be made designating the land at The Green Line, West Bridgford; Meadow Park, East Leake and Springdale Wood, East Bridgford (shown hatched on the plans in Appendix 1 to the report) as Local Nature Reserves pursuant to Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

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

It was RESOLVED that:

a)              any recommendations made by Local Development Framework Group be considered;

b)              the proposed revisions to the draft East Midlands Freeport Strategic Infrastructure and Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) be supported;

c)              the adoption of the East Midlands Freeport Strategic Infrastructure and Contributions Supplementary Planning Document be approved;

d)              delegated authority be granted to the Director of Development and Economic Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, to adopt the East Midlands Freeport Strategic Infrastructure and Contributions Supplementary Planning Document no later than 30 June 2026 and to make any necessary final graphical, presentational and minor textual changes required to the SPD prior to publication; and

e)              a further report be brought to Cabinet in the event that either or both of the other local planning authorities (North West Leicestershire District and South Derbyshire District Council) do not adopt the SPD in order to review the Council’s position as regards the SPD.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, Councillor Upton, presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth, detailing the East Midlands Freeport (EMF) Strategic Infrastructure and Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Councillor Upton advised that the report had been prepared on a collaborative basis by the three local planning authorities for the EMF sites, Rushcliffe Borough Council, North West Leicestershire District Council and South Derbyshire District Council. A five week consultation had taken place and the intention was that all three councils would adopt the SPD before the national cut-off date of 30 June 2026.

The main purpose of the SPD was to support the development of the Freeport, and to ensure a coordinated and collaborative delivery and funding of the strategic transport infrastructure required to support the three EMF sites, with contributions to be made on an equitable and proportionate basis. More work would be required to underpin the SPD through an EMF Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), which would be subject to public consultation and adoption in due course. The SPD envisaged a Framework Section 106 Agreement to coordinate funding and delivery from multiple sites as they came forward through the planning process. The SPD stated that until such time as the IDP has been endorsed, only limited weight should be given to it, as a material planning consideration, although the need for pulled contributions would carry weight. Councillor Upton confirmed that the draft SPD was accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report, as detailed at Appendix 3 to the report. Following consultation with the statutory authorities, it was concluded that the SPD did not require an SEA or an HRA. The report had been considered by the cross-party Local Development Framework Group, which had voted in favour of the recommendation requesting Cabinet to adopt the SPD by a majority vote seven to four. As Chair of that Group, Councillor Upton advised that some members of the Group felt that the focus of the report appeared to be on strategic road transport, with little, if any mention of public transport. Councillor Upton concluded by reiterating that without this SPD there would be a greater risk that development associated with EMF would come forward without the necessary strategic infrastructure contributions.       

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Brennan referred to this significant site, with the EMF in Rushcliffe centred on the Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station site, which was a major strategic site not just for Rushcliffe, but the wider region and potentially nationally, in terms of bringing forward employment, innovative businesses and economic growth. She stated that it was really important that all sites within the EMF could move forward, with Rushcliffe’s particular interest centred on the power station site, and the sooner it could start moving forward to attract investment and innovation the better.  

It was RESOLVED that:

a)              any recommendations made by Local Development Framework Group be considered;

b)              the proposed revisions to the draft East Midlands Freeport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.