Agenda and draft minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

Councillor R Walker stated that having considered his obligations under the Council’s Code of Conduct in respect of Item 10b: Notices of Motion – Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), he advised that he owned or was involved in the ownership of investment property, including some HMOs, which included some properties in Rushcliffe, as disclosed in his Register of Interests. He advised that he was also a partner in a business involved in the letting and management of property, including some HMOs, although he confirmed that currently the business did not manage any HMOs in Rushcliffe. Accordingly, he concluded that he did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest in the item, and the motion, when considered in the context of its specific detail, was not directly related to his financial interests. He was sure that his involvement in property ownership and management did not affect his capacity to objectively assess the motion or compromise his impartiality on the matter, so he would therefore take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

To receive as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on Thursday, 17 July 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 17 July 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor informed Council that he had been keeping busy, attending numerous events over the summer, all of which he had thoroughly enjoyed, and he thanked Councillors for sponsoring his wife, who had recently completed the Great North Run and would be taking part in the Robin Hood Half Marathon for his charity.

The Leader advised that he had recently written to both local MPs requesting that they lobbied the Government, on Rushcliffe’s behalf to ensure that the Council received the best possible Fairer Funding. He was pleased to announce that following refurbishment, both Keyworth Leisure Centre and the Sir Julian Cahn Pavilion had recently reopened. The Leader referred to the ongoing roll out of the new recycling bins for glass, which would continue.

There were no Chief Executive’s announcements.

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

No citizens’ questions were received for this meeting.

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

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth detailing the Rushcliffe Sport and Tourism Charter.

The Leader stated that it was hoped that this Charter would promote tourism and the visitor economy, by encouraging visitors attending sporting events to stay for longer and enjoy the Borough. He advised that high level talks had taken place with various local clubs, and whilst Nottingham Forest’s name was not currently included, the club was involved and fully supportive and the Leader was confident that the club’s name would be added to the Charter over the next few months.

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

Councillor Polenta referred to the importance of grass roots sports and felt that investing in sport was investing in healthier lives, with sport crossing social divides. She agreed that sporting events helped to boost the local economy, with tourism linked to that building resilience and strengthening communities. It was important to create partnership working, to ensure that everyone could be involved.  

Councillor S Mallender stated that whilst supporting the Charter, she was concerned that there was no reference in it to local residents, nor any commitment to promote active travel and public transport, to improve the parking problems faced by residents, especially when Nottingham Forest was playing. She stated that assurances had previously been given that the club would liaise with local residents; however, that had yet to happen and whilst wanting to encourage sport and bring people to Rushcliffe, it was important that local residents were not forgotten.

Councillor Plant reiterated those comments, and whilst acknowledging the huge contribution that the club made, the impact on residents and local infrastructure due to the lack of parking could not be ignored and some meaningful dialogue was required.

Councillor Gowland also agreed with comments made and stated that it was very hard to engage with Nottingham Forest, land was available for parking and local residents should be listened to.

Councillor Grocock agreed that tourism was a very important growth area for the Borough and referred to the Strategy’s importance to the East Midland Combined Authority (EMCCA). He felt that there was a “broadbrush” interpretation when considering the visitor economy for the EMCCA region, which simplified it into the City and rural Derbyshire. Councillor Grocock acknowledged the many rural areas in Rushcliffe, and the important role that they could play, which would mean interpreting sport on its broadest level. He felt that it was important to align sport with its broader role and questioned how the Charter and Strategy would fall within the broader interpretation of economic growth and how tourism businesses would be supported.

Councillor Chaplain struggled to think how community groups would deliver visitor-focused services and asked which groups the Charter was referring to. She also questioned the statement that there would be investment in sport-led regeneration, when the report stated that no financial implications had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Wellbeing, ICT and Member Development, Councillor J Wheeler presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services detailing the Councillors’ Learning and Development Policy for 2026-2029.

Councillor Wheeler referred to the important decisions Councillors made and the need to have appropriate training to make those informed decision, hence the considerable time and resources given to develop and deliver a training programme. The Policy set out this approach, including the important role played by the Member Development Group (MDG), which had reviewed this Policy. Councillor Wheeler stated that some Councillors had asked for additional support with e-learning and confirmed that drop-in sessions were being arranged and he encouraged all Councillors to take up as many training opportunities as they could.

Councillor Matthews seconded the recommendation and referred the right to speak. 

Councillor Plant agreed that it was appropriate that Councillors received appropriate training, questioned why some mandatory training had not been completed within 12 months of taking office, as required in the Policy, and felt that it would have been helpful for Councillors to have received more regular updates on training requirements. Councillor Plant referred to the revised Policy and a requirement that an annual training report be taken to the Standards Committee and was concerned that potentially Councillors could be named if they had failed to complete mandatory training. She felt that this was unnecessary, as there could be extenuating reasons and that should be taken into account. Councillor Plant also suggested that Councillors should submit ideas to broaden the programme.

Councillor Way supported Councillor Plant and asked for more frequent and structured MDG meetings, to ensure consistency and to allow the Policy to be implemented and delivered. Regular meetings would allow training completion rates to be monitored and concerns addressed, and she questioned when and how Councillor feedback on training had been used to improve it. Councillor Way suggested that all mandatory training sessions should be held at least twice, at different times of the day, and where possible remote access and recording sessions should be available. Councillor Way was concerned that responsibility was being given to the Chair of Standards Committee to name individual Councillors, asked for safeguards to be put in place, and advised that she had been reassured by officers that naming individual Councillors would be a final step. However, to ensure that this did not happen, she proposed the following amendment, to provide an additional layer of protection and to ensure that a unilateral decision could not be made:

It is RECOMMENDED that Council adopts the 2026-2029 Councillors’ Learning and Development Policy subject to the following change in wording of section 11 of the Policy:

“If necessary, the Chair of Standards Committee will write to individuals with mandatory training remaining undone more than 12 months after becoming a Councillor. Should this situation persist, then the Chair of Standards Committee, in conjunction with the Monitoring Officer, reserves the right to identify individual Councillors not meeting the required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To receive Notices of Motion

a)           Councillor Upton

In the last ten years, more new homes have been built in Rushcliffe than anywhere else in Nottinghamshire. This was achieved, in part, by the previous Government abolishing housing targets and giving more power back to local councils to determine where new housing should be built. The new Government has restored housing targets and is proposing planning reforms that will give more powers to house builders. We are concerned that Rushcliffe will be forced to take more housing than is planned for. With the current proposed Local Government Reform, we believe that the current housing target policy is no longer relevant. 

We propose that this Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and calls on the Government to: 

1. abolish mandatory housing targets for District and Borough Councils; 

2. safeguard Greenbelt and Greenfield land against future development, where an area has met its house building obligations in the last five years; and 

3. create a new approach of identifying brownfield land and city centre sites for housing development and produce targets for them regardless of the current Local Government boundaries. 

b)          Councillor Clarke MBE

It is perceived that Rushcliffe is experiencing an increase in the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), particularly small HMOs falling within Use Class C4 (occupation by between three and six unrelated people, sharing basic amenities, as more than one household). HMOs play an important role in housing provision across the Borough; however, this can lead to issues associated with parking pressure, noise, and have a detrimental impact on community cohesion and local amenity.

Under the current planning framework, the change of use from a dwelling house (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4) is classed as permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, such that planning permission is automatically granted without a planning application having to be made. Under Article 4 of that Order, local planning authorities have the ability to make Direction, after preparing an evidence base. This includes mapping current HMOs, identifying any recent increase in the creation rate of new HMOs, and assessing local impacts, including amenity, parking, waste, and housing balance, and where the operation of specific permitted development rights is resulting in harmful impacts, removing those rights in defined areas, so that an application for planning permission would then be required.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.           Investigate and collate an evidence base to look at whether there is a case for introducing an Article 4 Direction across Rushcliffe, to enable this Council to assess proposals for HMOs on a case-by-case basis through the planning process. This will allow local residents and Councillors to be consulted and consider the impacts of such proposals.

2.           Bring a formal report to Cabinet by the end of February 2026, to enable it to consider the evidence (subject to it being available and the completion of public consultation) and, if justified, recommend that a  ...  view the full agenda text for item 32.

The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Upton and seconded by Councillor Mason

“We propose that this Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and calls on the Government to: 

1.           abolish mandatory housing targets for District and Borough Councils; 

2.           safeguard Greenbelt and Greenfield land against future development, where an area has met its house building obligations in the last five years; and 

3.           create a new approach of identifying brownfield land and city centre sites for housing development and produce targets for them regardless of the current Local Government boundaries.” 

In moving the motion, Councillor Upton stated that the Conservative Group was passionate about managing housing development, with a proven record, having built more homes in Rushcliffe in the last 10 years than anywhere else in the County. Whilst acknowledging the national housing shortage, he advised that Rushcliffe had already met its obligations, had a draft Local Development Plan in place up to 2041 and therefore did not need a centralised, mandatory target imposed. Over the last 10 years, 13,000 new homes had been allocated for Rushcliffe, with 6,000 of those accepted under the Duty to Cooperate, to meet the needs of Nottingham City Council. The Government’s mandatory targets for 2024, outlined 4,000 further new homes for Rushcliffe, whilst the City had been given a lower target and Councillor Upton questioned if that was fair. He was concerned that planning reforms could potentially give more power to developers and felt that any Councillor who believed in local democracy and protecting the Greenbelt should support the motion.     

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

Councillor Calvert stated that because the Council failed to build enough homes in the previous decade, it had been given a higher target 10 years ago to make up the shortfall. He referred to the collaborative working to produce the revised Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (GNSP), which contained targets up to 2041, and questioned why those agreed targets should be abandoned, and the Plan put into jeopardy. He felt that it was premature to consider the current LGR process as a valid reason for abandoning the existing policy and that focusing on the identification of brownfield and city centre sites had little strategic merit.

Councillor Thomas felt that the actions in the motion were insufficient, suggested that all Councillors should be involved in responding to Government planning consultations, and that she would be more interested in a proactive motion that looked at what Rushcliffe could do if it was forced to accept more housing. Councillor Thomas questioned how the Council could accelerate the build out of existing strategic sites, identify more sites, and identify gaps which could be filled. She proposed the following amendment, to include two actions that the Council could take itself, which was seconded by Councillor Way, who reserved the right to speak:

In addition, the Council will take action as follows:

a.           that the Council will set up an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To answer questions submitted by Councillors

Question from Councillor Chewings to Councillor Inglis.

“Public concern remains regarding the land on Tollerton Park Estate, fuelled by ongoing media reporting and the activities of campaign groups, and residents deserve clear, unambiguous answers to questions of safety.

Could Councillor Inglis tell us what action has been taken to help residents and support them in getting definitive answers to their questions regarding the safety of the land where they grow vegetables, and what further action can be taken by this Council to help residents get the answers they require.”

Councillor Inglis advised that as stated in his response to Mr Gaff’s question at the Council meeting on 17 July 2025, the Council had undertaken considerable work to respond to concerns raised by Park Home residents. He acknowledged that many residents might not have been living on site when the Council carried out an investigative survey in 2008, with the report available on the Council’s website. He reiterated that the report had concluded that the site did not meet the statutory definition of contaminated land, with a reassessment in 2017, when further development took place, which came to the same conclusion. The Council was not aware of any circumstances in the intervening period, which would change that conclusion.  

However, given the technical nature of the report and recent concerns expressed by residents, Councillor Inglis confirmed that the Council had written a letter and briefing note, which had been hand delivered to residents on 7 July, and had been widely welcomed by many residents and ward members for the Council and County Council, who had been working hard on their residents’ behalf. The accompanying letter also included good practice information on ensuring the safety of fruit and vegetables for human consumption given that it was not within the Council’s role or remit to give any further assurance. Key elements of the briefing note were also available on a Council FAQ website, which demonstrated the Council’s desire to ensure that all local residents were appropriately updated. This commitment was also evident when the Council met and updated the Rushcliffe MP on 23 July. Councillor Inglis stated that the Council continued to work with other relevant regulatory agencies and would add further information to its FAQ site when it became available.  

The Mayor asked Councillor Chewings if he had a supplementary question.

Councillor Chewings referred to the question raised by Mr Gaff and to Councillor Inglis’ response at the Council meeting; however he felt that the letter, response, and briefing note had not answered Mr Gaff’s specific questions, and he asked Councillor Inglis if he agreed that the failure to address those clear questions undermined residents’ confidence.

Councillor Inglis reiterated that the Council was not in a position to give that advice, and it would be unwise to give categorical assurances when there were so many variables. It was not within the Council’s role or remit to make a decision on homegrown produce, rather it could provide advice and guidance based on the 2008  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.