Agenda item

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 taken into account as a material planning consideration, alongside other material planning considerations, in assessing the planning balance and determining the application, in accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

In response to the points raised by SNAG in the JR, the Council has reviewed some of the “directional language” in the SPD and made some minor refinements. These are intended to finesse the language used to set out where the guidance “requires”, or “expects” etc. things to be done. The changes are minor as their effect is to clarify and refine what the approach of the Council may be in considering how closely the application accords with the guidance, albeit always in the context of these considerations being only a material planning consideration to be taken into account in the planning balance when determining the application.

The refinements are, by themselves, minor, and also minor in the context of the planning balance in the determination of planning applications. However, they are considered to provide helpful clarity as to the Council’s views and expectations and to respond to some of the points raised in the JR.

The Council does not consider that these minor amendments are necessary from a legal perspective, however, they are recommended on a precautionary basis because the ‘cut-off’ date for the completion of SPDs by the end of June 2026 means that there would not be any opportunity for subsequent minor changes after that date.

The minor amendments sought to the SPD do not materially change the substance of the SPD. Instead, they simply make it clear that (as the amended text of the proposed SPD says explicitly in paragraph 1.7) where reference is made to something being ‘required’ or a ‘requirement’ or that something ‘will’, ‘must’, ‘shall’ or is ‘expected’ to be provided or is ‘mandatory’, or to ‘development not being likely to be supported if it is inconsistent with this SPD’, then that must be understood in the context of this SPD being a material planning consideration and not a development plan document.

The statutory consultees, including Natural England, Historic England and the Environment Agency have been consulted on the proposed supplemental Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). At the time of publication of the Cabinet report, the Council had received consultation comments from only two of the Statutory Bodies: Historic England and Natural England. However, the Environment Agency has now also responded to the consultation. Positive responses have been received from all three bodies, agreeing with the Council that a full SEA is not required. 

The Council received a letter from the consortium of developers on 18 June 2026, which has been shared with Cabinet ahead of tonight’s meeting. The letter sets out representations to the effect that “material considerations for the planning applications do not need to include an adopted SPD” and that the Council can be content that the consortium are working cooperatively to deliver the Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE).

The Council’s external solicitors and officers disagree that an SPD is not required as a material consideration. The SPD provides key guidance for applicants across a range of topics to help guide development proposals in this important SUE, including in relation to important transport, social, community infrastructure provision commensurate with housing delivery. The SPD will help to hold developers to account in the determination of the applications and provides a range of guidance to inform the applicants’ proposals”.

In presenting the report, Councillor Upton gave an overview of the history of the site, from its adoption as a SUE in 2014 and confirmed that it was included in the draft Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (GNSP). Continuing delays on this SPD would risk the Council meeting mandatory housing targets and could put pressure on to release new sites to maintain the Council’s five-year housing supply, with 30 June being the cut-off to adopt this SPD. Councillor Upton reiterated that this SPD would not give planning approval, it would provide guidance to developers and would be a material planning consideration. On 10 March 2026, Cabinet adopted this SPD; however, on 6 May a claim was made by SNAG seeking permission to apply for a JR, with the hope of bringing the airfield back into use. In the Council’s opinion, a successful JR would not achieve that as the land was allocated within the Rushcliffe Local Plan for a SUE, and a JR could not remove that allocation. The Council had sought legal advice and would defend any JR claim, as it did not consider the claim to have merit or be arguable. The SPD was before Cabinet again because minor changes had been made and a reconsidered Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Opinion had been undertaken, which continued to conclude that the SPD did not in itself create any likely significant environmental effects compared to those assessed in relation to the adopted Local Plan. Councillor Upton confirmed that public consultation had previously been undertaken, and legal advice had confirmed that given the amendments were minor, with no material change to the SPD, then no further consultation was required. It was noted that concerns had been raised regarding possible ground contamination; however, that would be dealt with at the planning application stage. The main landowners and developers were working collaboratively, with a single, aligned highway access strategy for the entire site. The SPD proposed two mechanisms to ensure that the correct infrastructure was delivered at the right time and was funded and built appropriately through an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and a Framework Section 106 Agreement. Councillor Upton stated that in June, Place Point, a £150m joint venture announced the acquisition of part of the site. This joint venture was focused on delivering housing at pace and to contribute to the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.   

Councillor Upton concluded by advising that without this SPD in place, there was a real risk that the Council could lose a significant degree of control over what development was delivered on this strategic site. The report was seeking the re-adoption of the SPD, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report and the endorsement of the reconsidered and updated SEA and HRA Screening Opinion as set out in Appendix 2.

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Inglis stated that the Council must not lose sight of what it was striving to achieve with the production of this SPD. He referred to the significant officer time used to produce the SPD, which had been amended, and was subject to ongoing conflicting legal opinions. He was alarmed that Rushcliffe’s Council taxpayers could face an estimated £100k bill or more for the SNAG JR, which would fail to serve their objectives in bringing the airfield back into use. He reiterated that the SDP would provide guidance for developers, to provide the best possible collaboration for infrastructure, design and facilities for the site, it was not a planning consent. Planning consent would only be considered separately once all the material planning considerations had been met. Councillor Inglis confirmed that the Council had to provide land to meet the Government’s national housing targets and the owners of the land had closed the airfield to allow development to take place to meet those housing provision objectives. He stated that the consequences of not meeting the 30 June deadline were clearly set out in the report and everyone should recognise and plan for what was in the best interests for existing and future communities.

Councillor J Wheeler reiterated that the SPD would provide guidance for any future planning applications, which was important given that landowners changed and future development was uncertain. For a development of this size, it was important to have appropriate infrastructure in place to support existing and future residents. Councillor Wheeler emphasised again that the Council had to follow planning policy set by the Government, and if residents were unhappy with housing targets they should lobby their local MPs. He also reiterated that any possible land contamination would be dealt with at the planning application stage, to provide reassurance to the public. Councillor Wheeler referred to the 30 June deadline and to the importance of adopting this SPD to provide protection for current and future residents.

Councillor Brennan reiterated that the SPD would provide key guidance for this extensive site and it was vital to ensure the best possible quality development to create a cohesive and attractive community. As previously stated, this SPD would not approve planning applications, it would be considered as part of any application process and it was the Council’s most important tool to ensure development that the Council could be proud of.

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.