Agenda and draft minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

The following declarations of interest were made in respect of Item 11: Local Government Reorganisation Update.

Councillor Gaunt declared a non-pecuniary interest as a secondary school teacher in the city.

Councillor Parekh as an employee of Nottinghamshire County Council.

Councillor Grocock, as an employee at Futures, a company jointly owned by Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council.

Councillor S Mallender, as an employee of Nottingham City Council.

To receive as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on Thursday, 22 May 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 22 May 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor informed Council that his year had begun well, attending eight very enjoyable events. Highlights included the Soar Boating Club birthday celebrations, laying a wreath at Crich, attending Southwell Minster for the King’s birthday celebrations, the Radcliffe on Trent Carnival, and Proms in the Park.  He reminded Councillors about his Civic Service on Sunday, 20 July in Keyworth.

The Leader referred to the very successful Proms in the Park, as well as the recent Film and Food Festival, which highlighted how well Rushcliffe organised such large scale events. Council was informed that earlier in the week some Travellers had moved onto Bridgford Park, and he went on to thank the Police and officers for promptly dealing with the situation. The Leader confirmed that Rushcliffe had again been awarded three Green Flags, which highlighted how well regarded those services were.

There were no Chief Executive’s Announcements.

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

The Mayor invited Mr Gaff to read his question as submitted.

“Can this Council, Councillors and its officers categorically assure the residents of Tollerton Park estate that it is safe to continue to live on Tollerton Park estate, and to continue to grow and consume the fruit and vegetables, which we produce on the land of the former RAF Tollerton site?”

Councillor Inglis thanked Mr Gaff for his question and advised that the Council’s position on those points was set out in a letter and detailed briefing note that was hand delivered to all the Tollerton Park Home residents on 7 July 2025, as an expediated response to residents in relation to this question.  The Council hoped that residents found the information helpful and of some assurance and that residents would follow the good practice advice contained in the correspondence. 

No petitions were presented at this meeting.

The report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services is attached

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services providing a review of the work undertaken by the Council’s four Scrutiny Groups during 2024/25.

The Leader informed Council that he had great pleasure in presenting the Annual Scrutiny Reports for approval and referred to the important of scrutiny in helping to develop policy and provide the appropriate checks and balances. After Councillor Brennan had been given the opportunity to second the report, he asked that each of the scrutiny Chairs be invited to deliver a brief summary of the year.

Councillor Brennan seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Combellack, Chair of the Corporate Overview Group for 2024/25, reported that the Group had allocated many scrutiny requests, helping to guide and formulate them, even redirecting them where appropriate, which had led to both interesting and productive debate. Scrutiny of performance figures confirmed that Rushcliffe continued to deliver high level services, with good customer feedback.  As the new Chair of Growth and Development Scrutiny Group, Councillor Combellack stated that she was looking forward to scrutinising work at the “coalface”. She thanked officers and members for their time and dedication, in particular the Head of Corporate Services and the Director – Finance and Corporate Services and concluded by looking forward to being involved in further successful scrutiny work.  

Councillor Edyvean, Chair of the Governance Scrutiny Group, thanked members of the Group for their involvement in sometimes lively debate on a range of topics. He stated that the Group had considered the Redmond Review, which had resulted in the appointment of an Independent Person, which had proved a very positive step and thanked officers and external presenters for their involvement and support.

Councillor Williams, Chair of the Communities Scrutiny Group, referred to the wide range and interesting subjects the Group had considered, which were detailed in the report and thanked officers, in particular the Head of Environment and Communities, the Democratic Services Team and members of the Group, especially the Vice-chair, Councillor Plant.

Councillors Matthews, Chair of the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group, referred to the varied and interesting topics that the Group had reviewed, which were detailed in the report, including the joint meeting with Communities Scrutiny Group, to consider accessible housing. He thanked all members of the Group, in particular the Vice-chair, Councillor Way and officers.

Councillor Plant, Vice-chair of Communities Scrutiny Group, thanked Councillor Williams and reflected on the interesting subjects covered during the year. She felt it was important that Councillors were appropriately informed about scrutiny topics and that recommendations agreed by scrutiny groups were actioned. Councillor Plant stated that the joint scrutiny group had been extremely informative, raising concerns, with many excellent recommendations, which, if implemented could make a real difference.  She also felt that it would be good practice for Vice-chairs to see the draft Annual Scrutiny Report before it was published and she hoped that further scrutiny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The report of the Monitoring Officer is attached

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance, Transformation and Governance, Councillor Virdi presented the report of the Monitoring Officer, outlining appointment of Independent Persons to the Standards Committee. 

Councillor Virdi advised that it was a requirement of the Localism Act 2011 that the Council should have access to at least one Independent Person to consult on Member Code of Conduct matters, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer. Councillor Virdi advised that given the uncertainties around Local Government Reorganisation, it was not considered cost effective to commence a recruitment process to appoint new individuals, and it was recommended that the appointment of the two current Independent Persons be extended as detailed in the report.

Councillor Simms seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor J Walker thanked the two current Independent Persons for their professionalism over the past two years and fully endorsed the recommendation.

It was RESOLVED that the appointment of Mr Christopher Richards and Ms Helen Richardson as its Independent Persons for standards matters under Section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011 be extended for a period of two years, with authority for the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Standards Committee, to extend the appointment up to an additional two years. 

The report of the Chief Executive [To Follow]

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Chief Executive, which provided an overview of the Government’s requirement for plans for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) to be developed in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and to update on the work undertaken to respond to the requirements.

In formally moving the recommendations detailed in the report, the Leader stated that LGR was the most important issue for Rushcliffe in years and summarised the actions taken since the publication of the Government’s White Paper in December 2024. He confirmed that in March, councils in Nottinghamshire had submitted three core options, all of which proposed two unitary councils, with Rushcliffe advancing a fourth option of three unitary councils. He confirmed that Rushcliffe’s position remained that no part of it should be part of a newly expanded City area, as Rushcliffe was well run, financially stable, delivering first class services, in contrast to the City Council.  The Leader advised that the original proposal had now been reduced to two options, 1b and 1e as detailed in Appendix D to the report, and Council noted that as Rushcliffe’s option had received little support from other authorities, the report was recommending supporting option 1b. The Leader reminded Council that this was not a final decision, it was an update, with work on the Council’s third option being paused; however, if circumstances changed it would be revisited. The Leader referred to evidence gained from the ongoing petition, with over 15,000 cross-party signatures, all against Rushcliffe joining any expanded City area. The Leader concluded by reiterating that this report was supporting an interim approach, working towards a final submission in November, and he thanked officers involved in this time consuming work.  

Councillor Brennan seconded the report and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor J Walker advised that the Labour Group had submitted an amendment, as it believed the proposal to be unbalanced and potentially damaging; however, as it could not be accepted, the Labour Group would not be supporting the recommendations. She felt that Rushcliffe would not have an open mind during the consultation process, with the proposed recommendations failing to serve the needs of local communities. Councillor Walker stated that all useful debate had been replaced by political rhetoric and that the proposals had been put forward without properly investigating all other options, as there were alternative ways to improve efficiencies and service delivery. Councillor Walker questioned why there had been no serious evaluation of the boundary review and what evidence there was in favour of option 1b rather than 1e. The Labour Group was demanding a better process, where all options were carefully considered, as residents deserved that.

Councillor Thomas referred to the most cost effective option of a single unitary authority, questioned why it had been discounted for political reasons and felt that it should be reconsidered, because if implemented with a commitment to running local area committees, it could deliver for everyone.  Councillor Thomas was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive Notices of Motion

a)    Councillor J Wheeler

Rushcliffe Borough Council was recently re-awarded the Armed Forces Covenant Employer Scheme (ERS) Gold Award in December 2024.

This is the highest honour for organisations that have signed the Armed Forces Covenant, recognising employers who actively support the Armed Forces Community in their workplace and encourage others to follow their lead. 

Given it has been over 11 years since the Council first signed up to the Armed Forces Covenant, we as a Council resolve to:

1.    Re-affirm this Council’s support to for the Armed Forces Covenant by signing up again for the Armed Forces Covenant

2.    Welcome Rushcliffe Borough Council being re-awarded of the Gold Award for the Armed Forces Covenant Employer Scheme

3.    Place on record our thanks for all those who serve in the Armed Forces, their family and friends and all of our Veterans

4.     Encourage all employers in Rushcliffe to sign up to the Employer Recognition Scheme Award.

The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor J Wheeler and seconded by Councillor Brown.

“This Council resolves to:

·                  Re-affirm this Council’s support to for the Armed Forces Covenant by signing up again for the Armed Forces Covenant.

·                  Welcome Rushcliffe Borough Council being re-awarded of the Gold Award for the Armed Forces Covenant Employer Scheme.

·                  Place on record our thanks for all those who serve in the Armed Forces, their family and friends and all of our veterans.

·                  Encourage all employers in Rushcliffe to sign up to the Employer Recognition Scheme Award.

In moving the motion, Councillor Wheeler advised that a great deal had happened since the Armed Forces Covenant was first signed in 2015, including the opening of the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) at Stanford Hall, with its first class facilities making a huge difference to the treatment and recovery of so many. The Council’s showcase events celebrated the armed forces, including Prom in the Park, which had won an award at the Boots and Berets awards in 2024.  The Council was re-awarded the Employers Scheme Gold Award in 2024, the highest honour for organisations that signed the Armed Forces Covenant and a testament to the work of the Council, and Councillor Wheeler thanked the Team Manager Community Development in particular for her work on this.  Councillor Wheeler stated that by re-signing the Covenant, the Council was reaffirming its commitment to the armed forces and veterans, to ensure that they knew how grateful Rushcliffe was for their service. He concluded by encouraging any member of the armed forces or veterans who needed support to contact the Council.

Councillor Brown seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Fletcher stated that as an ex service member, he had a strong belief in supporting the armed forces and veterans and felt that the difficulties faced when returning to civilian life were not always obvious.  Schemes such as the Armed Forces Covenant provided vital support and the Labour Group was passionate about supporting the armed forces and would be supporting the motion.

The Leader felt and hoped that everyone would support the motion and agreed that it was important that the Council reaffirmed its support for the armed forces, advising that Rushcliffe was previously home to several RAF stations and an Ordnance Depot. The Leader referred to the significance of the DMRC to the Borough, with the important work it did.

Councillor Gaunt referred to the current political situation in the country and the significant attacks on diversity and inclusion measures and felt that this was an excellent example of diversity inclusion in operation. He asked if the Council could engage more with local businesses to improve awareness of the scheme. 

Councillor Birch thanked Councillor Fletcher for his service, advised that he had family members who were veterans and was aware of the challenges veterans faced daily. He felt that as a country, veterans should be given far more respect, thanked officers and confirmed that his Group would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To answer questions submitted by Councillors

a)       Question from Councillor Gowland to Councillor Inglis.

“Can the Council explain how residents are made aware of reports of land contamination and related warnings from RBC Environmental Health? For instance, are the reports available in a way that will be found on land searches or public searches? Does the Planning Committee advise developers or utilities of any reports on land they are likely to work on?”

Councillor Inglis advised that similar to all district and borough councils, this Council had a public register of land that has been determined as contaminated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provided a risk based approach to the identification of land were contamination posed an unacceptable risk to health, and could be easily accessed via the Council’s website. The Council also held a range of information on its GIS system covering historical land usage, which was used to respond to public enquiries, particularly in relation to land searches when purchasing a property. In addition to the standard land search information, some purchasers decided to undertake a Con29 enquiry, which contained a standard list of questions and some optional queries that related to land contamination, which the Council would provide a response to, based upon the information that it held. It was not the role of the Planning Committee to advise developers or utility companies of any contamination, and when determining a planning application, Environmental Health was a statutory consultee and would raise any appropriate known matters in relation to a site.

The Mayor asked Councillor Gowland if she had a supplementary question.

In talking about levels of acceptable risk, if a report referred to the change of use of land, in particular excavations, which required further investigation works, would that then be picked up by any of these reports?”

Councillor Inglis confirmed that Environmental Health, as the statutory nominee would pick that up on the planning application, and the stringent conditions in place would not be discharged until they were passed.

b)       Question from Councillor Plant to Councillor Brennan.

“Please can the Cabinet Member responsible for economic development clarify if they are aware of any factors that may change the planned uses of the site at Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station site?

Councillor Brennan stated that she was not aware of any factors and confirmed that the Council worked closely with all partners, meeting recently to discuss plans and progress on the site. It was her understanding that all partners remained committed to bringing the site forward for green energy, innovative businesses and to address the motorway junction capacity.

The Mayor asked Councillor Plant if she had a supplementary question.

The power station was the largest commercial development site in Rushcliffe, and of great importance, particularly as part of the only inland Freeport. It was nearly two years since the Local Development Order was put in place and the issue had been discussed by the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group last night, and she asked when and how Councillors would be updated?  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.